Case 1400068/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Whitfield v Trere Innovation SRL Unipersonale — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400068/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Whitfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with his agreed entitlement to one month's notice of dismissal, or pay in lieu of that notice. It ordered the respondent to pay the agreed sum of £2,400.
The claimant's claims for arrears of holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and 'other payments' were dismissed. The respondent's counter-claim also failed and was dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons beyond the dispositive orders, and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent failed to provide the claimant with his agreed entitlement to one month's notice of dismissal, or pay in lieu, and was ordered to pay the agreed sum of £2,400. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Holiday pay | The claimant's claim for arrears of holiday pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim for 'other payments' was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counter-claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,400
- across all upheld claims
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.