Case 3306780/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306780/2021
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr David Snashall, Mrs A Carvell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Cambridge on 13 April 2023, recorded that the claimant did not attend and that the respondent was represented by counsel. It held that Mr C Radu had not been discriminated against on the grounds of race by reason of being disciplined and/or dismissed by Tayto Group Limited.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. It stated that the respondent acted fairly in treating the claimant's conduct as misconduct justifying summary dismissal. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim failed.
For the same reason, the tribunal said there could be no successful claim of wrongful dismissal. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not discriminated against on the grounds of race by reason of being disciplined and/or dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal stated that the respondent acted fairly in treating the claimant's conduct as misconduct justifying summary dismissal, so there was no successful wrongful dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.