Case 2204826/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Casagrande v Underground Retail Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204826/2019
- Decision date
- 5 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Casagrande
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined on the papers because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr M Casagrande presented a claim for £1,865.99 in unpaid wages, made up of £1,262.99 for June 2019 and £603.00 for July 2019. Underground Retail Ltd did not dispute that those sums were unpaid, so the tribunal held that the unlawful deduction claim succeeded, subject only to the Respondent's counter-claim.
The Respondent alleged that the Claimant had failed to work the full notice period and that this caused loss in excess of £1,200. Employment Judge Adkin found that the Claimant's departure was in breach of his notice provision and accepted that the Respondent may have suffered some inconvenience and that senior staff may have had to carry out different duties. However, on the balance of probabilities the tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondent had proved any financial loss, whether by costs incurred or revenue foregone, so the contract claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for unpaid wages of £1,262.99 in June 2019 and £603.00 in July 2019. The Respondent did not dispute that those sums were unpaid. | Upheld | — | £1,866 |
| Breach of contract | The Respondent's contract claim/counter-claim was based on the Claimant allegedly failing to work his full notice period and causing loss in excess of £1,200. The tribunal accepted some inconvenience but found no proven financial loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,866
- 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.