Case 2303397/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dumitru v Brake Bros Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303397/2022
- Decision date
- 8 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Panel members
- Mrs M Oates-Hinds, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dumitru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Croydon via CVP on 8 July 2024 before Employment Judge Leith, sitting with Mrs M Oates-Hinds and Mr R Singh. The claimant, Mr R Dumitru, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, Brake Bros Ltd, was represented by Mr Carter, Counsel.
The written judgment records only that the claims were dismissed following the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing. No substantive findings on liability are set out in the written record, and the judgment does not record any award or remedy.
The judgment also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days. On the face of the written decision, the tribunal made no merits determination beyond dismissal for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed following the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing; the written record does not contain any merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed following the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing; the written record does not contain any merits findings. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.