Case 6018094/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ciprian Cosmin Lazar v St Mary's University — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018094/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Searley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ciprian Cosmin Lazar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ciprian Cosmin Lazar, brought two breach of contract complaints against St Mary's University. The tribunal heard the matter at London South via CVP on 4 November 2025 before Employment Judge Searley, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay, finding it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the complaint of breach of contract in relation to sums said to be owing due to early termination of the contract, again finding it was not well-founded.
The written record notes that the reasons for judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note attached to the decision. No monetary award was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to sums owing due to early termination of the contract was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.