Case 2216273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cartell Lowe-Vidal v Lalaland Trading Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216273/2023
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cartell Lowe-Vidal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr Cartell Lowe-Vidal's unfair dismissal claim. The written record does not give the underlying reasons for that strike-out, and it records that the judgment was given orally at the hearing.
The Tribunal also found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages in the period July to August 2023.
In remedy, the Respondent was ordered to pay £4,464, described as the gross sum deducted. The Claimant was said to be responsible for any tax or National Insurance. The Tribunal also awarded £129 to compensate the Claimant for financial loss attributable to the deduction, making a total award of £4,593.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The written record gives no further reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period July to August 2023. It ordered payment of £4,464, described as the gross sum deducted, plus £129 for financial loss attributable to the deduction. | Upheld | — | £4,593 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,593
- 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.