Case 2205011/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R v M Rotar and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205011/2019
- Decision date
- 23 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr R
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at London Central sat on 23 June 2021 before Employment Judge A M Snelson. Counsel appeared for both sides, and the judgment records that the parties had reached settlement terms at the hearing. By consent, Bucci Restaurants Ltd was joined as Second Respondent.
The tribunal entered judgment on a full and final settlement basis for all claims or potential claims arising out of the claimant's employment and/or its termination. The agreed sum was £20,000, payable to the claimant's bank account. The judgment does not identify or determine the underlying claims individually, and it does not contain findings on liability on the merits.
The settlement terms required £4,000 to be paid by 30 June 2021, with the remaining £16,000 to be paid in weekly instalments of at least £1,000 starting by 6 July 2021. The judgment states that the total liability was to be discharged by 20 October 2021.
Each respondent was made jointly and severally liable for the £20,000 debt, and the parties agreed that a default in the payment series would entitle the claimant to enforce the entire judgment debt, subject to credit for any part-payments already made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Judgment entered by consent after the parties agreed terms of settlement. The judgment does not list the underlying pleaded claims individually; it records a full and final settlement of all claims or potential claims arising out of the claimant's employment and/or termination. | Settled | — | £20,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- 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.