Case 2603346/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Paraschiv v CDS Labour (Agriculture) Ltd (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603346/2023
- Decision date
- 23 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Paraschiv
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 23 December 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The judgment does not set out detailed reasoning on the merits, as it was issued on the papers under the rule 21 default-judgment procedure.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of £1,030.12 and a compensatory award of £19,780.95, totalling £20,811.07. The judgment was issued by Regional Employment Judge Swann, dated 4 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response in time. Basic award £1,030.12 and compensatory award £19,780.95 awarded under this single unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £20,811 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,811
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,030
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,781
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.