Case 3313461/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Jankowska v DNA Manufacturing Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3313461/2019
- Decision date
- 25 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Jankowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. The tribunal recorded that no response had been received to the claimant’s complaints and entered judgment in her favour on the pleaded matters: unfair dismissal, dismissal without notice, entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment, and failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.
The judgment does not set out any substantive findings on liability beyond the fact of the default judgment. No remedy figure was determined in this decision. The tribunal directed that remedy would be decided at a hearing on 7 January 2020 unless the claimant provided sufficient information for the tribunal to determine remedy without a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment under Rule 21; no response received. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint was that the claimant was dismissed without notice; default judgment entered under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint was that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment; default judgment entered under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment; no direct taxonomy match. | Upheld | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.