Case 8001197/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Cywinski v Stone Sales Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001197/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Cywinski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration hearing before Employment Judge O’Dempsey on 9 January 2025. The tribunal considered the claimant’s application under rule 68 and following of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 to revisit an earlier decision striking out his claim under rule 27 of the 2013 Rules for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant said Stone Sales Ltd was effectively the same business as Stone Source Ltd, with the same owner, director, workshop, staff, telephone number, logo and email, and that he had worked for the earlier company for 14 years. He explained that he had resigned on 11 April 2024 because of health and safety concerns and that, at that time, there had been no discussion about what would happen to the company.
The tribunal accepted that Stone Sales Ltd was incorporated on 19 April 2024, eight days after the claimant’s resignation. It held that, on the claimant’s own account, the respondent did not exist when he resigned, so there was no transfer of undertaking at that point and no basis for saying any dismissal was linked to a transfer of undertaking. The judge also considered the limitation position and found no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that the claim had been presented in time or that any extension of time should be granted. The application for reconsideration was dismissed and the earlier strike-out remained in place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written reasons do not identify the underlying statutory basis of the struck-out claim. The tribunal refused reconsideration, finding no reasonable prospect of a different outcome because Stone Sales Ltd did not exist when the claimant resigned on 11 April 2024, there was no transfer of undertaking on the claimant's own account, and there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the claim was in time or that time should be extended. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 68 and following of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- rule 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
- reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.