Case 2402129/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Pismennyi v Westmorland Hospitality Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402129/2023
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Pismennyi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Pismennyi, succeeded in all three complaints heard by Employment Judge Ficklin at a remote CVP hearing in Manchester. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent, Westmorland Hospitality Limited, to pay gross wages of £1,354.43.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay untaken annual leave and ordered payment of £213.84 gross. A further award was made under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. That award was fixed at £1,326.00, being two weeks' pay calculated on 60 hours per week at £11 per hour.
The total sum ordered to be paid was £2,680.43. The judgment notes that neither party objected to the remote hearing format and that reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unpaid wages; tribunal ordered gross wages of £1,354.43. | Upheld | — | £1,354 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint for untaken annual leave succeeded; tribunal ordered gross sum of £213.84. | Upheld | — | £214 |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; tribunal calculated this as 2 weeks' pay at 60 hours per week at £11 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,326 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,680
- 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.