Case 2402857/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Butler v Ciaooo Pizzeria Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402857/2024
- Decision date
- 5 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr E Butler brought claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, holiday pay and breach of contract against Ciaooo Pizzeria Ltd. The respondent did not present a response, and the Employment Tribunal entered a liability judgment in the claimant's favour under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds on liability and that the remedy due to the claimant will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. No monetary award is set out in this liability judgment. The decision was issued by Employment Judge M Butler and sent to the parties on 5 August 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. No response was entered by the respondent, and liability judgment was entered in the claimant's favour under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was described as unpaid wages. The judgment records that the claim succeeded on liability under Rule 21, with remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant brought a holiday pay complaint. The tribunal entered liability judgment for the claimant under Rule 21 and deferred remedy to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant also brought a breach of contract complaint. The respondent filed no response, so the tribunal entered judgment in favour of the claimant under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.