Case 2414320/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Gámez Cuenca v LNY Pizza Co Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414320/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Gámez Cuenca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting alone under Rule 21, the tribunal amended the respondent’s name to LNY Pizza Co Ltd and found that it had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of £432.74 in respect of that deduction.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to comply with its obligation to provide itemised pay statements, but it made no separate award for that breach because of the wage award already made. It further found that the respondent had failed to provide a statement of particulars of employment and, in accordance with s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, increased the wage award by £991.36, described as four weeks’ wages. The total award was therefore £1,424.10.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £433 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligation to provide itemised pay statements. No separate award was made because of the award at paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligation to provide a statement of particulars of employment. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002 the wage award was increased by £991.36, said to be four weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £991 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,424
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.