Case 2207514/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr v Chrysopoulos Mr S Sotirakis DEFAULT — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207514/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3, and the tribunal entered default judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after being satisfied that the claim had been correctly served. The claimant had worked for the respondent as a general bar and restaurant manager from 11 June 2021 to 12 October 2021.
The tribunal held that the claims for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid wages succeeded. However, it could not calculate the amount payable from the claimant's letter because the sums were not broken down by head of loss or period, and it was unclear whether they were net or gross. Remedy was therefore left to a later hearing, and the claimant was directed to provide a breakdown and supporting records before that hearing.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction under section 108(1) ERA 1996. The judge recorded that the claimant had only worked for four months and had not indicated that his dismissal was for an impermissible reason within the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay succeeded, but the tribunal deferred quantification to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay succeeded, but the tribunal did not quantify the amount in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages succeeded, but the tribunal could not calculate the amount from the material provided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 108(1) ERA 1996; the tribunal said the claimant had only four months' service and had not indicated an impermissible reason for dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.108(1) ERA 1996
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.