Case 6005509/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Paul Dumitru v Pacadar UK Limited and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 6005509/2024
Decision date: 19 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Fowell Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr Paul Dumitru

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that neither respondent filed a response to the claim. Under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, judgment was therefore entered for the claimant against each respondent. The judgment text does not set out the substantive factual issues or identify the pleaded causes of action by name, so the claim types in this extraction are inferred from the associated gov.uk listing categories.

The tribunal did not assess compensation or any other remedy in this judgment. It stated that compensation or other remedy would be assessed at a remedy hearing, with details to follow in due course. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Default judgment under Rule 21. The judgment text does not specify the pleaded claim labels; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category 'Public Interest Disclosure'.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Default judgment under Rule 21. The judgment text does not specify the pleaded claim labels; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category 'Unfair Dismissal'.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.