Case 1600969/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G.V. Roberts v Mr Michael Sasmaz t/a Aran Fish & Chips Shop (“R1”) Sangur Ltd (“R2”) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600969/2018
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G.V. Roberts
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Roberts was employed by R1 from June 2017, with continuous employment treated as starting on 19 September 2016 following a TUPE transfer from Coedmor Foods Ltd. It also recorded that R2 had been dissolved and was not the claimant's employer in any event, so R2 was dismissed from the proceedings. The claimant was summarily dismissed by R1 on 28 March 2018.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because it was in response to the claimant asserting statutory rights to receive a written statement of employment particulars, itemised pay statements, and to not suffer unauthorised deductions from wages. It therefore found that she was protected against unfair dismissal notwithstanding that she had less than two years' service. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £540 and a compensatory award based on losses to date of £3,462, plus a 25% ACAS uplift of £865.50, giving £4,327.50; recoupment did not apply.
The tribunal also found wrongful dismissal because R1 dismissed the claimant without notice, and awarded £360, being one week's wages. It further found unauthorised deductions from wages in the sum of £3,833.64 and ordered that sum to be paid subject to tax and NIC.
On the remaining statutory claims, the tribunal found that R1 failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars despite repeated requests and awarded £1,440, being four weeks' wages. It also found that R1 failed to provide itemised pay statements despite repeated requests, but made no further award on that claim because of the award already made in relation to the unauthorised deductions. The tribunal recorded a total payable by R1 of £9,961.14, subject to deductions for tax and NIC as appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that R1 unfairly dismissed the claimant for asserting statutory rights to a written statement of employment particulars, itemised pay statements, and protection from unauthorised deductions. The award included a 25% ACAS uplift and recoupment did not apply. | Upheld | — | £4,328 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that R1 breached the claimant's contract by dismissing her without notice and awarded one week's wages. | Upheld | — | £360 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in the sum of £3,833.64 and ordered payment of that amount subject to tax/NIC. | Upheld | — | £3,834 |
| Other | The tribunal found that R1 failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars despite repeated requests and awarded four weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £1,440 |
| Other | The tribunal found that R1 failed to provide itemised pay statements despite repeated requests, but made no further award because of the finding on unauthorised deductions. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,961
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £540
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,328
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.