Case 1400245/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Dulovic, employed barrister — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400245/2020
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
- Panel members
- Miss B Kirby, Mr D Cattell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew four complaints: unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, automatically unfair dismissal for reasons related to health and safety, and discrimination arising from disability. Each of those complaints was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The remaining discrimination complaint was one of direct perceived sex discrimination. The tribunal held that it was not well-founded and failed, stating that the claimant was not discriminated against.
The final complaint was unfair constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that the claim was not well-founded and failed because the claimant had not been dismissed by the respondent, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider that complaint. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for reasons related to health and safety was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct perceived sex discrimination was not well-founded and failed; the tribunal found the claimant was not discriminated against. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was not well-founded and failed. The tribunal found the claimant had not been dismissed by the respondent and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | 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.