Case 2301922/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Ospina Cadavid v Zing Environments Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301922/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Ospina Cadavid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract all failed and were dismissed.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent's breach of contract claim succeeded. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent GBP 12,125.38 as damages for breach of contract. The judgment states that reasons were given orally and does not include written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to unauthorised deduction from wages and states that the complaint failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract complaint failed and was dismissed. The judgment also records a separate respondent breach of contract claim that succeeded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's claim for breach of contract succeeded, and the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent damages of GBP 12,125.38. | Upheld | — | £12,125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,125
- across all upheld claims
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.