Case 2410853/2019 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mr J Laranjinha 2. Mr A Bernadino v Nazrul Islam Khan — 2022
- Case reference
- 2410853/2019
- Decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ganner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mr J Laranjinha 2. Mr A Bernadino
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr J Laranjinha and Mr A Bernadino were employed by Mr Nazrul Islam Khan as chefs under oral contracts, and that both were summarily dismissed without notice on 24 March 2019 for reasons unrelated to conduct. It rejected the corporate paperwork naming Amaya Lancaster Ltd/Wokiin Lancaster Ltd as employer, finding that the later payslips and P45s were created without the claimants' knowledge and contained false entries, and that Mr Khan held himself out as the employer.
On the wages claims, the tribunal accepted the claimants' evidence that they worked 78 hours a week and, for the second claimant, 72 hours a week until 10 December 2018 and 85 hours a week thereafter. It found they were paid below the National Minimum Wage throughout, treated the shortfall as a series of unauthorised deductions from wages, and awarded £10,978.21 to the first claimant and £27,161.96 to the second claimant, both inclusive of the section 17 uplift.
The tribunal also upheld the section 10/11 NMWA complaint about failure to produce records, the failure to provide written particulars of employment, holiday pay, and wrongful dismissal/notice pay. It awarded £697.60 each for the production-notice breach, four weeks' gross pay of £2,284 each for the particulars claim, £916.11 and £1,628.32 for untaken holiday, and £610.74 and £697.85 for notice pay, recording total gross sums payable of £15,486.56 and £32,469.73. The judgment's recorded total for the first claimant is 10p lower than the arithmetic of the itemised awards, so the stated total has been used here.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Breach of the statutory duty to provide written particulars of employment. The tribunal awarded four weeks' gross pay to each claimant under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, capped at a week's pay of £571. | Upheld | — | £4,568 |
| Other | Failure to comply with the section 10 NMWA production notices. The tribunal made the mandatory award of 80 times the current National Minimum Wage per claimant under section 11(2) NMWA 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,395 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a series of unauthorised deductions from wages because both claimants were paid below the National Minimum Wage throughout their employment. This combined figure is the sum of the awards stated for the two claimants and includes the section 17 NMWA uplift. | Upheld | — | £38,140 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination under the Working Time Regulations 1998, combining the awards for both claimants. | Upheld | — | £2,544 |
| Wrongful dismissal | One week's notice pay was awarded for each claimant because the dismissals were for redundancy and unrelated to conduct, combined across both claimants. | Upheld | — | £1,309 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £47,956
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Clark v HWR & Ors UKEAT/0018/20/BA
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.10(1)-(2) NMWA 1998
- s.10(5) and (9) NMWA 1998
- s.11(2) NMWA 1998
- s.17 NMWA 1998
- s.28 NMWA 1998
- Regulations 13, 13A and 14 WTR 1998
- s.86(1), (3) and (6) ERA 1996
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.