Case 2202619/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Arben Dushku v Bilberry Entertainment Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202619/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Arben Dushku
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Arben Dushku brought claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages arising out of his short employment as a bar tender from 5 March 2020 to 22 March 2020. The hearing took place on 18 January 2021 by CVP before Employment Judge Nicklin. The claimant did not attend, had not communicated with the tribunal since presenting his ET1 on 1 May 2020, and did not respond to the tribunal's direction or to the respondent's solicitor.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal considered the available material and the claimant's non-attendance. On the unfair dismissal claim, the respondent said the claimant did not have the required continuous service under section 108 ERA 1996, and the tribunal accepted that, subject to any exception not appearing to apply, he did not have sufficient service to bring the claim. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
On the wages claim, the tribunal considered the ET1, ET3 and the email chain showing that the respondent had told the claimant he would be paid £638.40 gross on 22 May 2020. The tribunal noted the claimant's email of 6 June 2020 stating, 'Thank you Sarah all is done', and found it more likely than not that the wages owed for March 2020 had been paid. It therefore dismissed the unlawful deductions from wages claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the claimant did not engage with the tribunal or attend the hearing; the tribunal also noted that he did not appear to have the continuous service required by section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found it more likely than not that the respondent had already paid the March 2020 wages in May 2020, including in light of the claimant's email on 6 June 2020 acknowledging that payment was done. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 108 of the 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.