Case 2204796/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Romano-Lukomski, Lay Representative For the v Ms J Bann, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204796/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Romano-Lukomski, Lay Representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Central London on 4 March 2020, before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone, the tribunal recorded three matters. The Claimant's statutory redundancy payment complaint was conceded by the Respondent and accordingly succeeded. The Claimant's holiday pay complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
The unfair dismissal claim was disposed of by agreement between the parties and was dismissed by consent. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant a total net sum of £4,000 by 18 March 2020. That sum comprised £1,575 in respect of the statutory redundancy payment and the balance for loss of employment.
The Respondent was also to confirm the Claimant's dates of employment on request by any future prospective employer. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written request was made within the stated period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy payment complaint was conceded and accordingly succeeded. | Upheld | — | £1,575 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The parties reached agreement on the unfair dismissal claim, which was dismissed by consent, and the balance of the agreed net payment was for loss of employment. | Settled | — | £2,425 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,000
- 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.