Case 3201476/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Carmen Ciocan v Consulting and Accountancy Services Limited t/a Elena Meskhi & Co — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201476/2023
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Carmen Ciocan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London on 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 October 2025 before Employment Judge Lewis. It determined that the claimant’s complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures, brought under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996, was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s usual practice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.