Case 3332090/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M Stankevicius v Flamingo Flowers Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332090/2018
- Decision date
- 4 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M Stankevicius
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr. M Stankevicius, brought a claim against Flamingo Flowers UK Limited alleging that the Respondent damaged his health by imposing an excessive workload upon him. Employment Judge Mr. A. Spencer sat alone at Cambridge on 4 January 2019 and heard the case with the Claimant in person and the Respondent represented by a solicitor.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim because it concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine such a claim. No substantive liability finding was made on the merits of the alleged excessive workload. The judgment records that the claim failed at the jurisdiction stage rather than after a merits determination.
The Tribunal also ordered the Claimant to pay costs to the Respondent in the sum of £500.00. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim that the Respondent damaged the Claimant's health by imposing an excessive workload upon him. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
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.