Case 3314766/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Waskowska v Warrens Warehouse & Distribution (Midlands) Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314766/2023
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Waskowska
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant had been present when the further case management hearing was listed for 24 February 2025. The purpose of that hearing was to issue further directions after the claimant applied to amend her claim form and the respondent had an opportunity to respond.
The claimant emailed the Tribunal on 13 February 2025 identifying proposed claims for automatically unfair dismissal based on protected disclosure, unfair dismissal based on health and safety, notice pay, and breach of contract. At the hearing, the claimant did not attend and gave no explanation. The Tribunal considered that the claimant had set out headline legal claims but not the facts on which the case was based, and dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant sought to amend to add automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 based on protected disclosure. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and the Tribunal could not identify the basis of the amendment from the material before it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant sought to amend to add unfair dismissal under section 100 ERA 1996 concerning health and safety. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and the Tribunal could not identify the basis of the amendment from the material before it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant identified notice pay as a claim. The judgment did not determine any remedy and dismissed the claim under rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant identified breach of contract based on being required to work 45 hours per week when she said her contract stipulated 37.5 hours per week. The judgment did not determine any remedy and dismissed the claim under rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.