Case 3200272/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms A Leoncavalo (2) Ms C Connelly (3) Mr G Shannon v Mr D Philogene t/a Gigglr Development (Shoreditch Radio) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200272/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms A Leoncavalo (2) Ms C Connelly (3) Mr G Shannon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the First Claimant's claim was dismissed. The extracted text does not identify the legal basis of that claim, and the decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing so no written reasons were provided unless requested.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Second Claimant's wages. It ordered the Respondent to pay the Second Claimant £250 gross.
The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Third Claimant's wages. It ordered the Respondent to pay the Third Claimant £500 gross. The combined monetary awards recorded in the judgment therefore total £750 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment records only that the First Claimant's claim was dismissed. It does not specify the legal basis of that claim in the text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found that the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the Second Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £250 gross. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found that the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the Third Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £500 gross. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- 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.