Case 4100137/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Zakaszewski v Represented by G Brown Representative Fourply Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100137/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rory McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Zakaszewski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard as a final hearing in Glasgow via CVP on 27 March 2023 before Employment Judge Rory McPherson. The claimant was Mr T Zakaszewski and the respondent was Fourply Ltd. The extracted judgment records that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints for pay, and those complaints were dismissed.
The text provided does not identify separate factual findings for individual pay claims, nor does it set out any remedy because none was awarded. It also states that oral reasons were given at the final hearing, but those reasons are not included in the extracted text supplied here.
On the face of the extracted judgment, the outcome is a jurisdictional dismissal only. No legal test is named in the text, and no lay members are listed, indicating a judge-alone hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states in general terms that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints for pay and that they were dismissed. It does not separate the pay complaints into distinct heads in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states in general terms that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints for pay and that they were dismissed. It does not separate the pay complaints into distinct heads in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.