Case 2302177/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Spyridon Antonakakis v FoodPlex Kitchen 1 Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302177/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Carney Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Spyridon Antonakakis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South by CVP on 25 January 2023 before Employment Judge Carney. The claimant, Spyridon Antonakakis, was represented; the respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The tribunal found the claimant’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages well-founded and ordered FoodPlex Kitchen 1 Limited to pay £4,875.00 gross, subject to the usual deductions for tax or national insurance contributions due. It also found well-founded the complaint that the respondent failed to pay an amount due in lieu of holiday that had accrued and had not been taken on termination of employment, and ordered payment of £540.00 gross, subject to deductions.
The claimant’s breach of contract complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. No other remedy, interest, or ancillary award is recorded in the judgment, and the bottom-line monetary sum reflected in the two successful claims is £5,415.00 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,875 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £540 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,415
- 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.