Case 2200491/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Natuzzi Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2200491/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sara Lalenia brought a claim against Natuzzi Services Limited. The respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin considered the ET1 and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal entered judgment under rule 21 and found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted the claimant's wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the amount due was unpaid commission.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,438.88, described as unpaid commission and payable net of tax and national insurance. No separate split of the award is given beyond that figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £1,438.88 in unpaid commission, stated to be payable net of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,439 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,439
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.