Case 3203112/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Lutfur Rahman Saleh Akram Suhel Joachim Goulette v Black Swan Ventures Ltd(claims of Lutfur Rahman & Saleh Akram Suhel) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3203112/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Lutfur Rahman Saleh Akram Suhel Joachim Goulette
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that all three claimants were employed by the respondents under genuine written contracts and were not engaged in any sham arrangement. It accepted their oral evidence and the contemporaneous emails from Mr Spysznyk, and found that they worked for long periods on business planning, budgeting, refurbishment and recruitment for the proposed restaurant venture without being paid.
The claims for unpaid wages succeeded. The judgment awards Lutfur Rahman £84,166.62, Saleh Akram Suhel £58,333.33, and Joachim Goulette £43,541.67, all gross. The reasons also say that Rahman and Suhel succeeded on unreimbursed expenses, with figures of £2,500 and £2,000 mentioned, although the arithmetic in paragraph 32 does not separately reflect Suhel's £2,000 expenses, so that part of the remedy is not fully consistent on the face of the reasons.
The holiday pay claims failed. The tribunal held that by the time the claimants resigned, their work had already ended, and it was logical to treat that period as holiday rather than untaken holiday entitlement. The respondents were ordered to pay the gross sums set out above, with a combined total of £186,041.62.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found all three claimants were genuine employees under genuine contracts and had not been paid their contractual salaries; the reasons and orders record gross salary awards for each claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Rahman and Suhel also succeeded on unreimbursed expenses. The judgment refers to £2,500 for Rahman and £2,000 for Suhel, but the final arithmetic does not separately reflect Suhel's £2,000, so that part of the remedy is not entirely clear. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal rejected holiday pay because it found the claimants had already stopped work before they resigned and treated that period as holiday. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £186,042
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- balance of probabilities
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.