Case 6022633/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Tracey De Rizzo v Community Links Academy Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022633/2024
- Decision date
- 28 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- London East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Tracey De Rizzo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Tracey De Rizzo brought claims against Community Links Academy Trust for breach of contract, described in the judgment as notice pay, and for constructive unfair dismissal. The hearing took place by CVP on 20 and 21 May 2025, with further hearing in chambers on 23 June 2025, before Employment Judge B Beyzade.
The breach of contract complaint had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024. The written judgment records no monetary award in relation to that complaint.
The tribunal also dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal complaint, stating that it was not well founded. The published decision contains only the formal outcome and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning in detail.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 51. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal described this as a constructive unfair dismissal complaint and held that it was not well founded. No separate remedy was recorded in the written decision. | 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.