Case 2200520/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Ciuculete v Jinkichi Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200520/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Ciuculete
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Central London Employment Tribunal on 30-31 May 2023 before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone via CVP. The Tribunal found as a fact that Mr I Ciuculete was not dismissed by Jinkichi Limited. On that basis, the Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were held not well-founded and were dismissed.
The Tribunal also dealt with the Claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints, and they were accordingly struck out. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed by the Respondent, so the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed for the same reason: the Tribunal found there had been no dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, so those complaints were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.