Case 2300766/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Pitino v Restaurant Trading Management Ltd (in liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300766/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Pitino
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not present a response within the stipulated time. Mr D Pitino brought claims including unfair dismissal and redundancy pay against Restaurant Trading Management Ltd (in liquidation). Those two claims were dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service.
The tribunal then found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered it to pay £1,885.00. It also found that holiday which had accrued on termination of employment had not been paid and ordered payment of £624.00. Separately, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £60.00 in damages.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,885.00. | Upheld | — | £1,885 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found accrued holiday on termination had not been paid and ordered payment of £624.00. | Upheld | — | £624 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £60.00 damages. | Upheld | — | £60 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,569
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.