Case 3201351/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fulop v Right Choice Services — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201351/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms S Harwood, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fulop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claimant's direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and harassment related to race claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the respondent wrongfully dismissed the claimant by dismissing him without notice. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant 629.23 pounds gross, equivalent to one week's notice pay. Reasons were given orally, and the written record states that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes this as harassment related to race contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent was found to have wrongfully dismissed the claimant by dismissing him without notice. | Upheld | — | £629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £629
- 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.