Case 2502400/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Teodorescu v Eat4Less and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502400/2019
- Decision date
- 6 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle Civic Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Teodorescu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Teodorescu, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Eat4Less and others. The hearing took place at Newcastle Civic Centre before Employment Judge Martin on 12 March 2020. The first respondent did not attend or take part in the hearing, and the judgment records that reasons were given orally.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It ordered the first respondent to pay compensation for unfair dismissal in the total sum of £2,077.92.
The award was calculated as a basic award of £119.22, together with a compensatory award. The compensatory element included immediate loss of £1,430.64, loss of statutory rights of £350, and no future loss. The tribunal then applied a 10% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, resulting in a total compensatory award of £1,958.70 and a total award of £2,077.92. The judgment also states that the Employment Protection (Recruitment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded. Compensation was ordered against the First Respondent in the total sum of £2,077.92, made up of a £119.22 basic award and a £1,958.70 compensatory award after a 10% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. | Upheld | — | £2,078 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,078
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £119
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,959
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.