Case 2216259/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Rocio Vaqueiro Lago v Michael Van Clarke LLP — 2025

Case reference: 2216259/2023
Decision date: 27 February 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gidney
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms Rayner Butler, Mr Steven Hearn

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Rocio Vaqueiro Lago

Respondent

Michael Van Clarke LLP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal under s98(4) ERA 1996. It also dismissed her claims of direct race discrimination under ss9 and 13 Equality Act 2010, harassment related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010.

The judgment also dismissed the claimant's claims for holiday pay, notice pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and breach of contract. The text supplied records only the dispositive orders; it does not set out the tribunal's factual reasoning or any monetary award, so no remedy was recorded.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Listed separately in the judgment as 'Notice Pay'.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Listed separately in the judgment as 'Breach of Contract'.	Dismissed	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.