Case 3212907/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Constantin Ciurla v Meads Construction Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3212907/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Constantin Ciurla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely on 26 April 2021 before Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone. The claimant, Mr Constantin Ciurla, attended in person. The respondent, Meads Construction Limited (In Liquidation), did not attend or take part. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was conducted by Cloud Video Platform and that a face-to-face hearing was not needed.
On the claimant's evidence, the tribunal held that he succeeded in his claims for redundancy payment, notice pay and outstanding holiday pay. It awarded redundancy pay of £3,228.00, notice pay of £8,480.16 and unpaid holiday pay of £4,807.26, producing a subtotal of £16,515.42. The judgment then deducted £3,800.00 already received from the Redundancy Payment Service, leaving a total award of £12,715.42 from the respondent, stated gross. The judgment noted that the notice pay and holiday pay sums were calculated gross and may be subject to tax and national insurance deduction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,228 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment awarded notice pay. The sum was calculated gross and may be subject to tax and national insurance deduction. | Upheld | — | £8,480 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment awarded unpaid holiday pay. The sum was calculated gross and may be subject to tax and national insurance deduction. | Upheld | — | £4,807 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,715
- 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.