Case 2406118/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Polloni v Leo’s Bar & Grill Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406118/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Polloni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Polloni originally presented the claim against Mr Bal personally, but after hearing from both Mr Polloni and Mr Bal the tribunal determined that Leo’s Bar and Grill Ltd was the correct respondent and substituted the company under Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal then held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages. In the judgment, Employment Judge L Cowen recorded that the remedy position had been reconsidered of the tribunal’s own initiative after the hearing, following the earlier indication that calculations would be checked, and that this led to a change in the amount awarded.
The final order was for Leo’s Bar and Grill Ltd to pay Mr Polloni the gross sum of £1,545 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. The written record also includes the standard interest notice, but no separate interest sum is stated in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal substituted Leo’s Bar and Grill Ltd as the correct respondent under Rule 34. It then found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,545 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,545 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,545
- 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.