Case 3303718/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I. Vaduva Mrs R. Sava Mr N. Viorel v Aspen Care Village Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303718/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I. Vaduva Mrs R. Sava Mr N. Viorel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 17 September 2021 before Employment Judge McNeill QC, the tribunal extended the time for the respondent to present its responses to 10 May 2021. The respondent confirmed that it was not pursuing any application to strike out the claimants' claims, and the tribunal recorded that none of the claims was struck out.
Mr N. Viorel's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by Mr Viorel. The judgment records no merits findings on the remaining claims and no monetary award.
The respondent's application for deposit orders in respect of the claimants' race discrimination claims and Ms Vaduva's unfair (constructive) dismissal claim was dismissed. The judgment is limited to these preliminary issues and does not decide the substance of the discrimination or constructive dismissal claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Viorel's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The respondent's application for deposit orders in respect of the claimants' race discrimination claims was dismissed. This judgment does not determine the merits of those claims. | Other | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The respondent's application for deposit orders in respect of Ms Vaduva's unfair (constructive) dismissal claim was dismissed. This judgment does not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
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.