Case 6021710/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Neli (Desislava) Vasileva v Nourish Contract Catering Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021710/2024
- Decision date
- 30 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor PRELIMINARY
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Neli (Desislava) Vasileva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Neli (Desislava) Vasileva brought claims including disability discrimination and public interest disclosure detriment against Nourish Contract Catering Ltd. The preliminary hearing was listed to establish the claims and issues and, if appropriate, make arrangements for a final hearing.
Early conciliation began on 9 December 2024 and ended on 13 December 2024, but the claim form was presented on 12 December 2024. It did not contain an early conciliation certificate number. Although the claimant indicated that no number was required because the respondent had contacted ACAS, the respondent stated that the exemption did not apply. The claimant subsequently supplied certificate reference R305867/24/42 on 13 February 2025.
The Tribunal found that the claim had been wrongly accepted because the requirements of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the requirement to include the early conciliation certificate number in the claim form had not been complied with. It dismissed the claim under rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it lacked jurisdiction, and the judgment records that the claim was struck out. The merits of the disability discrimination and public interest disclosure detriment claims were not determined, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because the claim form was presented before the conclusion of early conciliation and did not include an early conciliation certificate number; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The public interest disclosure detriment claim was part of the claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rule 12 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 28 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.