Case 2602256/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Panayiotou v Ottimo Restaurants Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602256/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Panayiotou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 29 September 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No hearing findings or reasons beyond the written judgment were recorded in the extracted text.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Ottimo Restaurants Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. The judgment does not distinguish between the two heads of claim for remedy purposes, and the award was stated as a single gross sum.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,800 gross. No separate basic award, compensatory award, interest, or other component was set out in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,800 gross together with the holiday entitlement finding in the same rule 21 judgment. The award was not split between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,800 gross together with the unlawful deductions finding in the same rule 21 judgment. The award was not split between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,800
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21
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.