Case 2400400/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Di Falco v Vertigo Foods Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400400/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
- Venue
- Liverpool ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Di Falco
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge McCarthy sitting alone at Liverpool on 22 July 2022. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Vertigo Foods Limited and then determined the two claims before it on the basis of the oral judgment given at the hearing.
The claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim was found not well founded and was dismissed. No separate monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been continuously employed by the respondent for at least two years before his effective date of termination. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed that claim as well. The judgment recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the published decision contains only the short oral outcome.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been continuously employed by the respondent for at least two years before the effective date of termination and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. | 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.