Case 4122227/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Jakubczyk st v RDM Polish Food Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4122227/2018
- Decision date
- 24 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Jakubczyk st
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis decision concerned the respondent’s application for reconsideration of an earlier order rejecting its employer’s contract claim. The tribunal had previously rejected that claim because it did not appear to be within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, on the basis that the claimants had not expressly pleaded breach of contract.
On the reconsideration application under Rule 13, the respondent argued that part of the sums sought by the claimants had to be sought by way of breach of contract because they were not sums falling within the definition of wages under section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the claimants subsequently confirmed that they did seek to advance a breach of contract claim.
In light of that confirmation, the tribunal held that the earlier decision to reject the employer’s contract claim was wrong and should be reversed. The reconsideration application was therefore granted, and the employer’s contract claim was accepted in full. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent’s employer’s contract claim was initially rejected for apparent lack of jurisdiction because the claimants had not expressly pleaded breach of contract. On reconsideration under Rule 13, after the claimants confirmed they did seek to advance a breach of contract claim, the tribunal held the earlier rejection was wrong and accepted the employer’s contract claim in full. | 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.