Case 3322140/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Stanculeanu v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3322140/2019
- Decision date
- 24 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs M Stanculeanu
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Tasty Affair Caterers Limited (now Aqua Viva Caterers Limited), did not present a response to the claim. The tribunal therefore entered judgment in favour of Mrs M Stanculeanu under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that her sex discrimination complaint succeeded. The judgment does not set out detailed liability reasoning beyond the entry of judgment following the absence of a response.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the remedy would be dealt with at a later remedy hearing, and required the claimant to provide a schedule of loss and details of mitigation and current earnings within 28 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent did not present a response. Judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21, and the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The respondent did not present a response. Judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21, and the sex discrimination complaint succeeded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | 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.