Case 2200898/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Gorini v Sentium Technologies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200898/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moyler REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Gorini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Gorini began working for Sentium Technologies Limited on 23 June 2023 as an Account Manager. The Tribunal found that the relationship was one of worker and employer, not a business-to-business subcontracting arrangement: the claimant worked mainly from the respondent's London office, on set hours, under a line manager, using company equipment, and with paid annual leave. The Tribunal also found that the contracts were for the claimant's personal services, notwithstanding the use of Food Global Limited for payment convenience.
The claimant gave notice on 17 October 2023 and last worked on 20 October 2023. When he tried to withdraw his final pay through Deel on 15 November 2023, the account had been closed and no payment was available. The Tribunal held that the final payment was due on 15 November 2023, so the claim presented on 30 January 2024 was in time. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the pro-rated October 2023 wages, and that no statutory, contractual, or written consent basis authorised the deduction.
On remedy, the Tribunal awarded £1,931.78 for the wages claim, representing the gross sum deducted for work done from 1 to 20 October 2023. It also upheld the holiday pay claim, finding that the claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of outstanding accrued annual leave on termination. Applying the contract and regulation 15A(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Tribunal found that 12 days had accrued, 7 had been taken, and 5 days remained outstanding.
The Tribunal awarded £691.15 for holiday pay, calculated at £138.23 per day. No other heads of loss were addressed. The total award was therefore £2,622.93 gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the claimant was a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996, that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction by not paying the pro-rated October 2023 wages, and that the deduction was not authorised or exempt. The award was the gross sum deducted. The reasons section contains apparent OCR/date inconsistencies ('2025' in paragraphs 45-47), but the chronology elsewhere supports October/November 2023 and a January 2024 claim. | Upheld | — | £1,932 |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found the claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of 5 days of untaken accrued annual leave on termination. It accepted that the contract provided for pro rata payment of accrued leave, applied regulation 15A(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to round accrued leave up to 12 days, deducted 7 days taken, and calculated the balance at £138.23 per day. The reasons section contains apparent OCR/date inconsistencies ('2025' in paragraphs 45-47), but the holiday-pay finding and arithmetic are clear from paragraphs 55-61. | Upheld | — | £691 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,623
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1991] ICR 331 (CA)
- regulation 15A(3) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.