Case 2206274/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Bodisteanu v Total Night Ltd T/a Rumours Restaurant (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206274/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in default after the respondent did not present a response. Employment Judge Spencer determined the claim on the basis of the information before the tribunal.
The claimant, Mr V Bodisteanu, succeeded on his claim for unpaid wages. The tribunal ordered Total Night Limited t/a Rumours Restaurant (in voluntary liquidation) to pay £577, which the judgment explained was £1,540 in unpaid wages less £943 already paid by the Insolvency Service.
The tribunal also dealt with a separate claim for the costs of dental treatment and held that it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim. That claim was dismissed. The judgment records no other remedy beyond the £577 wage award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the claim as unpaid wages and ordered payment of £577, calculated as £1,540 unpaid wages less £943 already paid by the Insolvency Service. | Upheld | — | £577 |
| Other | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim for the costs of dental treatment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £577
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.