Case 6013156/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Niculae v Bylor Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013156/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Niculae
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerned the claimant’s application to amend his case, heard on 17 July 2025. The claimant, Mr Daniel Niculae, sought to add victimisation and blacklisting allegations to an existing employment tribunal claim against Bylor Services Limited. Employment Judge Midgley clarified the claims and issues with the claimant, who was in person, and then heard submissions from both parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Proposed by amendment only. The tribunal treated it as a new claim, found the application contained no sufficient detail of the protected acts or detriments, and refused the amendment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Blacklisting allegations proposed by amendment only. The tribunal treated them as new claims, noted they were not adequately particularised and could not be placed clearly under Regulations 5, 6 or 9, and refused the amendment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Cocking v Sandhurst (balance of prejudice)
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Foxtons Ltd v Ruwiel
- Safeway and Abercrombie
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Chandhok v Tirkey
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.