Case 2207423/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Nikita Antell 1st v Paul Dinulescu 2nd Respondent: Silicon Roundabout Academy Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207423/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nikita Antell 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London Central hearing on 14 February 2022, Tribunal Judge Plowright acting as an Employment Judge joined Silicon Roundabout Academy Ltd as the 2nd respondent. The written record states that, by consent, the claims against Paul Dinulescu, the 1st respondent, were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to arrears of pay succeeded against the 2nd respondent, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £3,217. The claimant’s breach of contract claim also succeeded against the 2nd respondent, and the tribunal ordered payment of £30.31.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided in the decision record. The total monetary award recorded by the tribunal is £3,247.31.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claims against the 1st respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant by consent; this award was made against the 2nd respondent and is described as a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £3,217 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claims against the 1st respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant by consent; this award was made against the 2nd respondent. | Upheld | — | £30 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,247
- 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.