Case 2306069/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr T Marcelene (Director) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2306069/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment of 29 September 2021, heard at London South Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Webster, recorded three claims brought by Ms V Vladoiu against Drive Retail Services. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr T Marcelene, described as Director.
The tribunal recorded that the claim for Statutory Maternity Pay was not upheld. It upheld the claim for unpaid notice pay and awarded £119.70, and it also upheld the claim for unpaid holiday pay and awarded £335.16. The total award payable to the claimant was £454.86, subject to any tax and National Insurance deductions applicable.
The record states that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for Statutory Maternity Pay was not upheld. The extracted record does not set out further reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid notice pay was upheld and the claimant was awarded £119.70. | Upheld | — | £120 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay was upheld and the claimant was awarded £335.16. | Upheld | — | £335 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £455
- 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.