Case 2302158/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Karpeta v Mamuska Restaurants Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302158/2021
- Decision date
- 9 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Karpeta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work for the respondent restaurant on 17 September 2019 and ceased being a manager in June 2020 because he found the role too much pressure. The tribunal recorded five alleged protected disclosures, but found only the Second Disclosure on 11 September 2020 and parts of the letter sent on 22 December 2020 were protected disclosures. It found no protected disclosure had been proved for the First, Third, or Fourth Disclosures. The Second Disclosure concerned smoke in the restaurant and the fire alarms not sounding, and the tribunal found the claimant made a disclosure of information to Mr Coll, held a reasonable belief that it was in the public interest, and reasonably believed the information tended to show that health and safety had been endangered.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal accepted protected disclosures in the Second Disclosure on 11 September 2020 and parts of the Fifth Disclosure on 22 December 2020, but found the principal reason for dismissal was loss of trust and the claimant's refusal to provide clear answers about his absence and the restaurant keys, not the disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaint under sections 47B and 48 ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal found some conduct, including removal from Line messaging groups and reporting to the police, could amount to detriment, but held it was not done on the ground that the claimant made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay / breach of contract complaint dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct and that the respondent was entitled to terminate without notice because the claimant had committed a fundamental breach by failing to comply with reasonable management requests. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction claim for accrued holiday pay dismissed. The tribunal noted the dismissal letter referred to £666 accrued holiday and that the contract allowed deductions for money owed to the company, but found the claimant had not proved any unlawful deduction or entitlement on the evidence before it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
18 references- ERA 1996 s.43B
- ERA 1996 s.43C
- ERA 1996 s.43F
- Williams v Michelle Brown AM
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Dobbie v Felton
- Soh v Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine
- Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman
- ERA 1996 s.103A
- Feccitt and ors v NHS Manchester
- London Borough of Harrow v Knight
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir
- Aspinall v MSI Mech Forge Ltd
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- ERA 1996 s.13
- ERA 1996 s.23
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.