Case 1304391/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ciubotariu v DGF Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304391/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ciubotariu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing in Midlands West on 6, 7 and 8 March 2023, Employment Judge Faulkner sat alone to determine Mr A Ciubotariu's claims against DGF Limited. The judgment records that the breach of contract complaint was settled because the respondent made a payment in lieu of notice.
The tribunal found that Mr Ciubotariu made a protected disclosure on 9 August 2021, but it was not the reason or principal reason for his dismissal. On that basis, the protected disclosure complaint failed.
The tribunal also found that Mr Ciubotariu was not unfairly dismissed, and stated that his unfair dismissal complaint was therefore not well-founded. The respondent confirmed that it did not pursue any application for costs.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that this complaint was settled by the respondent making a payment in lieu of notice. | Settled | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure on 9 August 2021, but held that it was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and stated that the complaint was therefore not well-founded. | 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.