Case 6007591/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Nickson v Kismet Kebabs Ltd Heard at London East Hearing Centre (by CVP) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007591/2025
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Nickson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to postpone the preliminary hearing. The application was made the day before the hearing, was not supported by medical evidence, and the Employment Judge was not satisfied that there was a good reason for non-attendance, the late application, or a postponement.
The hearing proceeded in the Claimant's absence under Rule 47. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not complied with directions for any amendment application, and that the claim form identified only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The Claimant did not have two years' continuous service and the claim was also nearly two months outside the statutory time limit. The Tribunal found the claim outside its jurisdiction and struck it out under Rule 38(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the ET1 identified an ordinary unfair dismissal claim only. Proposed amendments to add automatic unfair dismissal and direct discrimination were not permitted and fell away. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 47
- Rule 38(1)(a)
- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.