Case 2500754/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Arturas Lapinskas v D’Antonio’s Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500754/2020
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Arturas Lapinskas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Arturas Lapinskas was employed by D’Antonio’s Ltd as a chef from 15 September 2019 to 19 December 2019. He presented his claim on 14 April 2020 seeking outstanding wages and holiday pay. The respondent did not present a response, and the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had provided a payslip from the respondent which remained unpaid and which set out the gross and net amounts due. It was satisfied that the sums claimed were uncontested and that there was sufficient material to determine the claims without a hearing.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unlawful deduction of wages in respect of arrears of pay and ordered the respondent to pay £1,442.31 gross. It also upheld the claim for unlawful deductions in respect of accrued and unpaid holiday pay and ordered a further £1,442.31 gross. The total amount ordered was £2,884.62.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for arrears of pay to be well-founded under Rule 21 and ordered payment of the gross sum claimed. | Upheld | — | £1,442 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for accrued and unpaid holiday pay to be well-founded under Rule 21 and ordered payment of the gross sum claimed. | Upheld | — | £1,442 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,885
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.