Case 2201528/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Vogiazinos First v Sola Fine Dining Limited (“R1”) Second Respondent: Ashley Renee Yates (“R2”) Third Respondent: Victor Garvey (“R3”) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201528/2024
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- by CVP from the Central London Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Vogiazinos First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claims against R2 and R3 because the claimant was not a worker or employee of those respondents. R1 did not attend and had not submitted an ET3.
The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, holiday pay, and unfair dismissal were well-founded against R1. The tribunal awarded £3,600 gross for notice pay and reserved the amounts for wages, holiday pay, and unfair dismissal remedy to a future remedy hearing.
The tribunal determined that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment. It also found that R1 unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deductions from wages complaint against R1 was well-founded for the stated periods, with the amount reserved to a future remedy hearing. Claims against R2 and R3 were dismissed because the claimant was not a worker or employee of them. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded against R1. The award was stated as a gross amount. | Upheld | — | £3,600 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was well-founded against R1 for 13 days accrued but untaken holiday, with the amount reserved to a future remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint against R1 was well-founded, with remedy reserved to a future remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
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.