Case 2203629/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Favara v Mr I Iacopini — 2024
- Case reference
- 2203629/2025
- Decision date
- 29 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Henderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Favara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages, identified as unpaid service charge, after employment as Kitchen Porter/Junior Kitchen Staff from 29 January 2024 to 26 February 2025. The final hearing took place in the claimant's absence after he had written in July 2025 about being unable to attend and had made no further communication with the Tribunal or respondent.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the respondent and considered the claimant's ET1 and the response. The respondent gave evidence that employees had voted on 8 October 2024 to agree the service charge distribution structure, that the claimant attended and had an opportunity to discuss and vote, and that payslips from October 2024 to February 2025 showed payments made under that structure.
The Tribunal found, based on the evidence presented, that the claimant had not shown on the balance of probabilities that he was owed any further wages. The unlawful deductions of wages claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for unlawful deductions of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- balance of probabilities
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.