Case 2208189/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ambrosio v Crème de la Crepe Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2208189/2023
- Decision date
- 31 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs C Brayson, Mr N Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ambrosio
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard this case at London Central Employment Tribunal by video on 22 to 25 October 2024 before Employment Judge E Macdonald, Mrs C Brayson and Mr N Williams. The claimant was Mr S Ambrosio and the respondent was Crème de la Crepe Limited.
The tribunal dismissed all three complaints. It found that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded, that the wrongful dismissal complaint was not well-founded, and that the direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 on the ground of race was not well-founded. The judgment does not set out any separate remedy because no claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 on the ground of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.