Case 1400665/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Da Cuna v Daisychain Bristol Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400665/2019
- Decision date
- 17 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms J Le Vaillant, Ms G Mayo
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Da Cuna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Da Cuna brought claims against Daisychain Bristol Limited for constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal, sitting in Bristol before Employment Judge J Bax with Ms J Le Vaillant and Ms G Mayo, gave oral reasons and later issued this written record of the decision.
The tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim and also dismissed the claim of discrimination on the grounds of race. No written reasons were provided, so the extracted record does not set out the tribunal's detailed findings beyond those outcomes.
The tribunal found that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was well founded. By way of remedy, it ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the agreed gross sum of £1,558.62 in respect of that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal; the tribunal dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claim of discrimination on the grounds of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deduction from wages claim well founded and ordered payment of the agreed gross sum. | Upheld | — | £1,559 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,559
- across all upheld claims
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.