Case 2204058/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Zuntner v MooKind Parsons Green Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204058/2022
- Decision date
- 8 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Zuntner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Central London Employment Tribunal on 8 November 2022 before Employment Judge Norris, sitting alone via CVP. The Respondent admitted the Claimant's claim for the difference in notice pay received and notice pay owing. The Tribunal therefore upheld that claim and ordered the Respondent to pay £249.90 gross, subject to deductions for tax and employee National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Respondent admitted the claim for the difference between notice pay received and notice pay owing. The Tribunal ordered payment of £249.90 gross, less deductions for tax and employee National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Holiday pay | Presented out of time. The Tribunal found the Claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and/or that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time. The Tribunal found the Claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and/or that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £250
- across all upheld claims
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.