Case 2207389/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Serra v Hot Stone Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207389/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Serra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr P Serra, brought claims against Hot Stone Ltd including a Working Time Regulations complaint about rest periods, unlawful deduction from wages, and breach of the National Minimum Wage Regulations. Sitting alone, Employment Judge Singh heard the case at London Central Employment Tribunal by CVP on 23 May 2023.
The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the Working Time Regulations claim in relation to rest periods, because of the applicable statutory provisions on time limits. No substantive finding on that claim was made beyond that jurisdictional ruling.
The remaining claims were not successful. The Claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed, and the claim for breach of the National Minimum Wage Regulations was also dismissed. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the Claimant's claim in relation to rest periods because of the applicable statutory time limits. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim was not successful and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Claimant's claim for breach of the National Minimum Wage Regulations was not successful and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.