Case 2203847/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Baretto Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203847/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns DEFAULT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by the respondent in its restaurant and brought multiple duplicate claims. The respondent failed to file any ET3 response. Employment Judge E Burns said that, on the claim forms and additional information provided by the claimants, the tribunal could determine liability without hearing evidence and entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal held that the claimants' claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, holiday pay and redundancy payments succeeded. The judgment does not quantify any award and does not split the claims into individual monetary components. A remedy hearing was listed for 8 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this as a successful claim for unpaid wages under Rule 21. The extracted text does not state any split monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mapped from the judgment's reference to successful notice pay. The extracted text does not specify the underlying pleaded label or any amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records holiday pay as one of the heads of claim that succeeded. No amount was fixed in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records redundancy payments as successful. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.