Case 1800867/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Eracleous v Imperial Catering Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800867/2023
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Armstrong Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Eracleous
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Armstrong issued a Rule 21 judgment on 30 June 2023 in favour of Mr M Eracleous against Imperial Catering Services Ltd on the wage, notice, and holiday claims. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,575 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £378 gross in damages. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £536.76 gross.
The unfair dismissal claim did not proceed to determination on the merits: it was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment records gross sums only and does not identify any separate interest award or other remedy beyond the three monetary orders, giving a total of £2,489.76.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,575. | Upheld | — | £1,575 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £378 gross. | Upheld | — | £378 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £536.76 gross. | Upheld | — | £537 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,490
- 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.