Case 3321171/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Diana v De la Cruz Garcia Francisco Baxe (1st) Salsa Direct (2nd) The Aegean Experience Maritima Co. Ltd (3rd) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321171/2019
- Decision date
- 21 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Diana
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the telephone preliminary hearing on 21 April 2020 before Employment Judge Bedeau, the first respondent agreed to pay the claimant £300 into her bank account by 4.00pm on 22 April 2020 and to provide an apology recorded in the judgment. The judgment states that, on that basis, all proceedings against the respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The recorded apology said that the first respondent genuinely apologised for any inappropriate physical contact between himself and the claimant which had led her to feel distressed, and said he would bear such behaviour in mind in future towards women. The judgment contains no substantive findings on liability or any separate breakdown of the agreed payment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Resolved by consent judgment; the text records dismissal of all proceedings upon withdrawal by the claimant and contains no merits findings. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Resolved by consent judgment; the text records dismissal of all proceedings upon withdrawal by the claimant and contains no merits findings. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Resolved by consent judgment; the text records dismissal of all proceedings upon withdrawal by the claimant and contains no merits findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £300
- 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.