Case 1308239/2019 · Employment Tribunal
J Dos Santos G Da Costa v K Best Partner Ltd and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308239/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- VIA CVP
Parties
4 namedClaimant
J Dos Santos G Da Costa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that both claimants were employed by the second respondent, Christine Choi Lin Soong, and that both had been unfairly constructively dismissed by her. The judgment records that the dismissal findings were made on the liability judgment, with remedy left for a later hearing.
It further found that both claimants’ breach of contract claims were well founded because the second respondent failed to pay them the national minimum wage and holiday pay. The tribunal noted that both claimants were employed on time work and that their pay reference period was a week.
The tribunal also upheld the claims that the second respondent refused to permit the claimants to exercise their rights under Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, failed to allow access to records under section 10 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and failed to provide statements of terms and conditions under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Declarations were made on each of those claims.
The judgment records that the claims for unlawful deduction from wages, an itemised pay statement, joint and several liability under Antuzis v DL Houghton, and wrongful dismissal were not pursued. Remedy was to be determined at a further hearing on 26 February 2021, with updated schedules of loss and a remedy bundle to be provided taking account of accommodation offset provisions in relation to the national minimum wage entitlements.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that both claimants were unfairly constructively dismissed by the second respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found breaches of contract in failing to pay the national minimum wage and holiday pay. It also noted that both claimants were employed on time work and that their pay reference period was a week. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that the second respondent refused to permit the claimants to exercise their rights under Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and made a declaration to that effect. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the second respondent failed to allow both claimants access to records in accordance with section 10 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and made a declaration to that effect. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the second respondent failed to provide the claimants with a statement of terms and conditions in accordance with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and made a declaration to that effect. | Upheld | — | — |
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.