Case 6013952/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Mr D Castro v (1) Ms M Rangel (2) Cubana (Waterloo) Limited v Mr D Castro v and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013952/2024
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Respondent: Mr D Castro v (1) Ms M Rangel (2) Cubana (Waterloo) Limited
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 15 December 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the harassment claim against the 1st respondent. The judgment states that the claim was brought out of time, that it was not just and equitable for the Tribunal to hear the complaint, and that it was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim against the 2nd respondent. The judgment states that, given the claimant's admissions about his conduct leading to dismissal during the hearing, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The five day hearing listed from 19 April 2027 was vacated as a consequence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states the harassment claim against the 1st respondent was dismissed because it was brought out of time and it was not just and equitable for the Tribunal to hear it; no protected characteristic is identified in the provided text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim against the 2nd respondent was struck out because, given the claimant's admissions about conduct leading to dismissal at the hearing, it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.