Case 2200485/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Perez Sanchez v Rossini International Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200485/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Perez Sanchez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 February 2025, Employment Judge Norris sitting alone at Central London heard the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims or make them subject to a deposit order. The tribunal first dealt with the discrimination claims and concluded that the race discrimination claim stood no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out. It reached the same conclusion for the sex discrimination claim as amended.
The tribunal also recorded that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was made in this judgment, and no apportionment of any remedy was required because the judgment was concerned with strike out, withdrawal, and case management rather than final liability and compensation.
The only remaining claim was described as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal ordered that it should proceed subject to payment of a deposit order. This judgment does not include a final determination of that claim's merits. The judgment was dated 9 February 2025 and sent to the parties on 17 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The amended sex discrimination claim was held to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The remaining claim, described as constructive unfair dismissal, was allowed to proceed subject to the payment of a deposit order. This judgment does not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
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.