Case 2305817/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Jayasooriya Arachchige v Robert Gastro Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305817/2021
- Decision date
- 13 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Jayasooriya Arachchige
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 10 December 2021. The respondent, Robert Gastro Limited, failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright determined the claim under rule 21. The judgment also records that Robert Gastro Limited was substituted as the correct respondent under rule 34.
On the substance of the claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £6,250 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £5,500 gross in damages for that breach. The claimant was recorded as responsible for any sums owed to HMRC in respect of tax and national insurance contributions.
The total sum ordered was £11,750 gross. The listed hearing on 16 August 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £6,250 gross under rule 21 after no valid response was presented on time. | Upheld | — | £6,250 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £5,500 gross in damages. | Upheld | — | £5,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,750
- 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.