Case 2301472/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person (Mrs A Hoyos in support) For the v Mr P Oppenheim, Chief Executive — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301472/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person (Mrs A Hoyos in support) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Siddall at London South on 13 November 2019, dealt with four claims brought by Mr PA Buika Upanga against Cubana UK Limited. The unfair dismissal claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal, so the tribunal did not determine it on the merits.
The claimant also pursued breach of contract claims. The first related to notice pay and the second related to bonus and service charge. The tribunal found that neither claim succeeded and both were dismissed.
The only claim that succeeded was the claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and awarded him £1,125.00 gross. No separate split of the award by claim is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim in relation to notice pay did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim in relation to bonus and service charge did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages and awarded £1,125.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,125
- 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.