Case 2207099/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Paola Marina de Luca v ACF Consultants Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207099/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paola Marina de Luca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at London Central on 25 and 26 October 2022 before Employment Judge Mr. M. Salter. The Claimant, Paola Marina de Luca, appeared in person. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. The judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, but the written record sets out only the outcome and awards.
The tribunal found that the Claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed and that her wrongful dismissal claim was also well-founded. It therefore upheld both claims. No separate discrimination, redundancy, wages, or other claims are recorded in the decision text supplied.
In remedy, the tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay a basic award of £3,264.00 and a compensatory award of £12,802.00. It also awarded £2,916.00 as compensation for breach of contract in respect of the wrongful dismissal claim, making a total award of £18,982.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim that she was constructively unfairly dismissed was well-founded. The basic award of £3,264 and compensatory award of £12,802 are recorded together with the unfair dismissal finding. | Upheld | — | £16,066 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's wrongful dismissal claim was well-founded and awards £2,916 as compensation for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £2,916 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,982
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,264
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,802
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.