Case 2203924/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Robu And v 70 Caffe Vergnano 1882 — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203924/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Robu And
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal said that the claimant, Ms M Robu, was employed by the respondent from 28 August 2019 to 17 January 2020. It noted that a default judgment had already been issued in respect of the claimant’s earlier claims in case numbers 2202199/2020 and 2202200/2020.
This claim, number 2203924/2020, issued on 4 July 2020, was found to duplicate those earlier cases. On that basis the tribunal struck out the claims for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and holiday pay.
The tribunal also recorded that, in any event, the claim was out of time. For the unfair dismissal claim, it further found that the claimant did not have the required two years’ continuity of employment because her employment ended on 17 January 2020. No merits hearing or monetary award was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because case 2203924/2020 duplicated case numbers 2202199/2020 and 2202200/2020; the tribunal also noted the claim was out of time and that the claimant did not have two years' continuity of employment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because case 2203924/2020 duplicated case numbers 2202199/2020 and 2202200/2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out because case 2203924/2020 duplicated case numbers 2202199/2020 and 2202200/2020. | 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.