Case 2303225/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P. Di Pietro v Davigdor Lodge Care Home — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303225/2021
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. P. Di Pietro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe GOV.UK decision page for case 2303225/2021 lists the jurisdiction codes as Public Interest Disclosure, Unfair Dismissal and Unlawful Deduction from Wages. The hearing was at London South on 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 November 2023 before Employment Judge Sudra, with Ms Taylor appearing for the claimant and Mr Johnson for the respondent.
The published judgment is very brief and records only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. It does not set out findings of fact, legal reasoning, liability analysis, or any separate award for any claim.
No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no legal tests are named in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing (Public Interest Disclosure); the PDF judgment itself only states that the Claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing; the PDF judgment itself only states that the Claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing; the PDF judgment itself only states that the Claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.