Case 2201163/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Christopher Bunting (2) Ciro La Sorte (3) Neetu Sahota (4) Herve Rimbaud v Secrets (Western) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201163/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Christopher Bunting (2) Ciro La Sorte (3) Neetu Sahota (4) Herve Rimbaud
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSecrets (Western) Ltd did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade therefore determined the claims under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the papers, without a hearing, by judgment dated 1 August 2022.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay salary, notice pay, redundancy pay and holiday pay to the four claimants and ordered payment of the sums set out in the judgment, together with accounting to HMRC for any tax and NI due. The awards were: Christopher Bunting £11,666 salary, £16,153 notice pay, £7,344 redundancy pay and £7,538 holiday pay; Ciro La Sorte £6,500 salary, £9,000 notice pay, £8,976 redundancy pay and £4,200 holiday pay; Neetu Sahota £6,500 salary, £9,000 notice pay, £5,712 redundancy pay and £4,200 holiday pay; and Herve Rimbaud £6,500 salary, £9,000 notice pay, £8,704 redundancy pay and £4,200 holiday pay. The total award was £125,193.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Aggregated salary awards for all four claimants. | Upheld | — | £31,166 |
| Breach of contract | Aggregated notice pay awards for all four claimants. | Upheld | — | £43,153 |
| Redundancy | Aggregated redundancy payments for all four claimants. | Upheld | — | £30,736 |
| Holiday pay | Aggregated holiday pay awards for all four claimants. | Upheld | — | £20,138 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £125,193
- 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.