Case 2301908/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Escanio Jimenez v Yeabu (London) Limited FINAL HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301908/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Escanio Jimenez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing took place on 14 November 2023 at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Truscott KC. The claimant, Mr R Escanio Jimenez, was represented by a trade union representative. The respondent, Yeabu (London) Limited, did not appear and was not represented.
The written judgment records that the claimant was entitled to an award for unfair dismissal, consisting of a basic award of £1,871.10 and a compensatory award of £4,616.42. It also records separate awards of £294.03 for unpaid wages and £40 for unpaid holiday pay.
Those sums produced a total award of £6,821.55. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,871.10 and a compensatory award of £4,616.42 on the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £6,488 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal also awarded £294.03 for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £294 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal also awarded £40 for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £40 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,822
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,871
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,616
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.