Case 2209023/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Romero Escrocia v Atalian Servest Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2209023/2022
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Panel members
- Mrs Brazier, Ms O'Shaughnessy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Romero Escrocia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Woodhead with Mrs Brazier and Ms O'Shaughnessy, gave unanimous judgment after an in-person hearing on 6, 7, 8 and 11 September 2023.
The Tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, direct race discrimination, and breach of contract for notice pay were not well founded.
The Tribunal also found that the Respondent was not in breach of its duty under Section 1(1) or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide written employment particulars or particulars of change. It further stated that no applicable finding had been made in favour of the Claimant for section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, and dismissed that claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the claim of discrimination arising from disability was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states the claim of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this as a breach of contract claim for notice pay and states it was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states the Respondent was not in breach of its duty under Section 1(1) or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the claim under section 38 Employment Act 2002 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 4(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.