Case 3321691/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Murrer v Mr Mauro Greco t/a Blossom Café — 2026
- Case reference
- 3321691/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Palmer Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Murrer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 Employment Tribunal judgment in which Employment Judge Palmer recorded that the claims succeeded. The extracted text does not set out the underlying facts or reasons for the liability decision, and it does not break the claims down individually in the body of the judgment.
The judgment states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. No figures are recorded in the extracted text, and no remedy split is provided within the judgment itself.
Because the extracted judgment is limited to the Rule 21 outcome, the claim labels in this record follow the case listing categories rather than a detailed substantive analysis in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claims succeed'; the specific claim head is taken from the case listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment text is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claims succeed'; the specific claim head is taken from the case listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The extracted judgment text is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claims succeed'; the specific claim head is taken from the case listing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The extracted judgment text is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claims succeed'; the specific claim head is taken from the case listing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
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.