Case 1400963/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Constantin Mosnegutu v Bighams Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400963/2021
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Constantin Mosnegutu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beever sat alone at a CVP hearing on 4, 5 and 6 September 2023. The tribunal dismissed Mr Constantin Mosnegutu’s unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, recording that it was not well founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim, again describing it as not well founded. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was likewise dismissed.
Mr Mosnegutu succeeded only on his holiday pay claim, which was recorded as being agreed in the sum of £648.96. The judgment contains no further remedy breakdown beyond that agreed payment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded in the agreed sum of £648.96. | Upheld | — | £649 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £649
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.