Case 2220787/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dubrovina v Berkeley Energy Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2220787/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Dubrovina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim well founded and held that she was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £1607.50, with no compensatory award payable and the recoupment regulations not applying.
The direct race discrimination claim, harassment claims related to sex, remaining direct sex discrimination claims, victimisation claims, wrongful dismissal claim, and unpaid holiday pay claim were not well founded and were dismissed. One direct sex discrimination claim concerning the 'husband' comment was dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,608 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states the direct race discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states the harassment claims were related to sex, not well founded, and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination claim regarding the 'husband' comment was dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The remaining direct sex discrimination claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,608
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,608
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.