Case 2207703/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C A Barbosa V v James Alexander Corbert Burcher t/a Dance Attic Café — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207703/2020
- Decision date
- 1 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wisby Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C A Barbosa V
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld all three monetary claims brought by Mr C A Barbosa V against James Alexander Corbert Burcher t/a Dance Attic Café. It found that the respondent had not paid notice pay due for the claimant's 10-week notice period and ordered payment of £1,566.74 gross as unpaid salary for that period.
The tribunal also upheld the claim concerning accrued but untaken annual leave. It ordered payment of £748.99 gross, described in the judgment as the balance of holiday pay owing to the claimant for 2.31 weeks' leave.
Finally, the tribunal upheld the claim for failure to pay the correct statutory redundancy payment and ordered payment of £5,375.38, being the balance of the redundancy payment owing. The extracted record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing, but it does not set out further written reasoning beyond the awards made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction of wages in respect of notice pay due for a 10-week notice period. | Upheld | — | £1,567 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction of wages in respect of 2.31 weeks' accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £749 |
| Redundancy | Failure to pay the correct statutory redundancy payment; the tribunal ordered the balance owing. | Upheld | — | £5,375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,691
- 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.