Case 4104704/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Jones (sitting alone) Miss Kerryann Kuszeluk v , solicitor Rollos Law LLP Heather Young and others — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104704/2018
- Decision date
- 5 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms Amanda
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jones (sitting alone) Miss Kerryann Kuszeluk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims on 15 May 2018 for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and failure to pay a redundancy payment. At the hearing on 2 April 2019, the Tribunal dealt only with a preliminary issue: the correct identity of the employer. It recorded that if the employer was Changes (Fife) Limited, the claims could not proceed because that company had been dissolved. The respondent's position was that Beyond Beauty was only a trading name and that the employer was Changes (Fife) Limited.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim presented, but this judgment determined only the preliminary issue of the correct employer and did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim presented, but this judgment determined only the preliminary issue of the correct employer and did not decide the merits of the breach of contract claim. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim presented, but this judgment determined only the preliminary issue of the correct employer and did not decide the merits of the redundancy payment claim. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.