Case 4106951/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Pyjko v Not present Mr Lee Deans — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106951/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Pyjko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Pyjko presented a claim complaining of unfair dismissal and failure to pay notice and holiday pay. The judgment records that Mr Lee Deans responded that Ms Pyjko was not an employee and that all payments that should have been made to her had been made. The hearing was by CVP on 19 March 2024, and Ms Pyjko did not attend. The tribunal noted that there had been no contact from her since she presented the claim and no explanation for her absence.
The tribunal found that Ms Pyjko did not have the necessary period of qualifying service, so the unfair dismissal complaint was subsequently struck out. Because she did not attend the hearing and gave no explanation, the tribunal decided to dismiss the claim in the circumstances. The judgment does not record any award or separate monetary findings on the notice pay or holiday pay complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that Ms Pyjko did not have the necessary period of qualifying service, so the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a complaint about failure to pay notice. It does not give separate findings on that head once the claimant failed to attend, and the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers to a complaint about holiday pay. It does not give separate findings on that head once the claimant failed to attend, and the claim was dismissed. | 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.