Case 3334929/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Czaplinski v Orchard House Foods Limited (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3334929/2018
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr J Vaghela, Mr D Snashall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Czaplinski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr C Czaplinski was unfairly dismissed by Orchard House Foods Ltd. The judgment record does not give written reasons because reasons were delivered orally at the hearing, so the published record is limited to the tribunal's conclusions.
The claimant's race discrimination claim was dismissed as not well founded. The claimant's claim for redundancy pay was also dismissed as not well founded.
The tribunal further recorded that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract, with the sum to be determined. No monetary figures are set out in the written record, and no final remedy figure appears in the published judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's race discrimination claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant's claim for redundancy pay was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract, with the sum to be determined. | 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.