Case 3204983/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Crudo v UC Franchising Ltd t/a The Urban Chocolatier — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204983/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Crudo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not file a response and did not attend the telephone hearing on 22 December 2021. Employment Judge P Britton, sitting alone at East London Employment Tribunal, recorded that the claims therefore succeeded in part on the materials before the tribunal.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unlawful deduction, described as non-payment of wages, and ordered the Respondent to pay £400 compensation. It also upheld the claim for non-payment of accrued statutory holiday entitlement and ordered £450 compensation.
A further claim for £1,150 described as compensation based on the Respondent's 'non-professionalisme' was dismissed. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to award that sum. The combined monetary award recorded in the judgment was £850.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal said the claim for unlawful deduction (non-payment) of wages succeeded and ordered compensation of £400. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal said the claim for non-payment of accrued statutory holiday entitlement succeeded and ordered compensation of £450. | Upheld | — | £450 |
| Other | The claim for £1,150 compensation based on the Respondent's 'non-professionalisme' was dismissed because the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to award it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £850
- 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.