Case 2304200/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Attila Hapak v Sundance Partners Ltd (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304200/2019
- Decision date
- 3 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Attila Hapak
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Attila Hapak, brought a wages claim against Sundance Partners Ltd (in administration). The respondent was in administration by the date of the hearing, but the administrators consented to the case proceeding and did not admit liability, so the tribunal did not adjourn the hearing.
Mr Hapak said his contract was for a fixed salary with compulsory unpaid overtime and that he had been required to work so much overtime that his pay fell below National Minimum Wage Act levels. He sought judgment of about £1,127 to bring his pay up to the minimum level.
The claimant did not attend the hearing, and his representative explained that he was working. The tribunal had only the claim form and the response, both filed before the administration, and no calculation of the sum claimed. There was no oral or documentary evidence supporting the allegation.
The tribunal said the burden of proving the claim was on the claimant and that evidence was required in some form. Because there was no such evidence, the claim could not succeed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant said his contract involved fixed salary with compulsory unpaid overtime and that he had been paid below National Minimum Wage levels. He sought about £1,127, but the tribunal found there was no evidence to support the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.