Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

Tribunal Watch/Miss M Tutin, counsel Employment Judge Members: Mrs A Brown Mr S G Vowles Mr D Gregory UNANIMOUS/3322482/2016

Case 3322482/2016 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Liberadski, counsel v Miss M Tutin, counsel Employment Judge Members: Mrs A Brown Mr S G Vowles Mr D Gregory UNANIMOUS — 2019

Case reference: 3322482/2016
Decision date: 29 November 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Members
Venue: Reading

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S Liberadski, counsel

Respondent

Miss M Tutin, counsel Employment Judge Members: Mrs A Brown Mr S G Vowles Mr D Gregory UNANIMOUS

Claims brought

2 categories

Disability discrimination
Unfair dismissal

Source tags (gov.uk)

Disability Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Mr S Liberadski, counsel v Miss M Tutin, counsel Employment Judge Members: Mrs A Brown Mr S G Vowles Mr D Gregory UNANIMOUS — Employment Tribunal 2019 | Tribunal Watch

Judgment 1 (PDF) ↗

Judgment 2 (PDF) ↗

Judgment 3 (PDF) ↗

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.