Case 3305679/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Surdu (Claimant’s son) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305679/2022
- Decision date
- 17 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr A Scott, Mr L Hoey
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Surdu (Claimant’s son) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Watford Tribunal on 15, 16 and 17 April 2024 before Employment Judge Cowen, sitting with Mr A Scott and Mr L Hoey. In the written record, the tribunal said the reasons were given orally at the hearing and therefore no separate written reasons would follow unless requested.
The claims of disability discrimination were dismissed. The judgment does not set out the separate discrimination allegations in the written record, and it records only the overall dismissal of those claims.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded and the tribunal held that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,306.25 and a compensatory award of £1,422.01, making a total award of £3,728.26.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claims of disability discrimination were dismissed, but it does not separate individual disability allegations in the written record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded and the tribunal awarded a basic award and compensatory award totalling £3,728.26. | Upheld | — | £3,728 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,728
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,306
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,422
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.