Case 3202067/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Lugo v A & L Restaurants Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202067/2019
- Decision date
- 11 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Lugo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by telephone on 10 June 2020 and, after giving Miss Lugo an opportunity to make representations, struck out the whole claim. It first clarified that she remained employed and that she was claiming lost pay for a period of absence from work after an assault at work. She said she had been frightened to go to work, had seen her doctor, and had received Statutory Sick Pay for part of the period covered by the claim.
The tribunal held that the only claim before it was a claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unlawful deduction of wages. It found that Miss Lugo was not contending that her employer had agreed she could be absent on full pay after the assault, that her contract entitled her to full pay when off sick, or that there was any written contractual term allowing the claimed payment. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that she had no reasonable prospect of showing that the wages she claimed were properly payable.
The claim was therefore struck out in its entirety. The tribunal noted that the complaint might potentially give rise to other claims, such as a personal injury claim or a harassment claim in the County Court, but those were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction on the facts as presented.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under Rule 37 because the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of showing the wages claimed were properly payable. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.