Case 2204702/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Oakland v Lattun Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204702/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sullivan Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Daniel Oakland
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDaniel Oakland brought claims against Lattun Limited and Viva Investment Partners AG. At the hearing on 4 January 2023 before Employment Judge Sullivan at London Central, the tribunal struck out the claimant's claim against the second respondent, Viva Investment Partners AG. The claimant's claims against the first respondent, Lattun Limited, for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract were found well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal ordered Lattun Limited to pay gross sums of £24,532.68 for salary and £3,750 for pension contributions under the unlawful deduction claim, and £25,000 for notice pay plus £556.22 for expenses under the breach of contract claim. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the published record contains the operative orders rather than a fuller written explanation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment awards salary (£24,532.68) and pension contributions (£3,750) under this claim. | Upheld | — | £28,283 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment awards notice pay (£25,000) and expenses (£556.22) under this claim. | Upheld | — | £25,556 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £53,839
- 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.