Case 2411009/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M F A Dias v Instafood Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411009/2021
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M F A Dias
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Instafood Limited was the correct respondent. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M F A Dias's wages and ordered payment of £920.50 gross for unpaid salary covering 1 to 15 July 2021.
It also found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered £70.80 gross. The claim against Level 202 Ltd was dismissed. The written notice of interest stated that any interest would be governed by the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day as 10 October 2022 and the stipulated rate at 8% per annum if sums remained unpaid after 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that Instafood Limited was the correct respondent and ordered payment of £920.50 gross for unpaid salary between 1 and 15 July 2021. | Upheld | — | £921 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered £70.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £71 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £991
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.