Case 2202067/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ionichi v Mida Bros Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2202067/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mrs V Ionichi, worked as a Pizza Chef for the Respondent, Mida Bros Ltd, from 2 October 2024 until 9 December 2024, having resigned and worked one week's contractual notice. The Respondent did not enter a response to the claim and did not appear at the hearing, which was conducted by CVP before Employment Judge A Stewart sitting alone on 28 July 2025.
The Tribunal considered the Claimant's employment contract and her October and November 2024 payslips, together with her sworn evidence. It found that, although she had been paid (late) for October 2024, she had not been paid the £2,183.64 net shown on her November 2024 payslip, nor the £546.00 net for the one week's notice she worked.
The Tribunal concluded that the complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging unlawful deductions from wages under section 13, was well-founded, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £2,729.64 net.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Comprises £2,183.64 net unpaid wages for November 2024 and £546.00 net for one week's contractual notice worked up to 8 December 2024. | Upheld | — | £2,730 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,730
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.