Case 3205180/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G de Luca di Roseto v Aviation 360 Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205180/2022
- Decision date
- 18 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G de Luca di Roseto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent stated in its response that it did not defend the claim. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and had failed to pay holiday entitlement, and ordered payment of £2,199.60 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £507.60 net in damages. The total sum ordered was £2,707.20 net. The hearing listed for 13 March 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award covered unauthorised deductions from wages and failure to pay holiday entitlement; the judgment did not split the amount between those heads. | Upheld | — | £2,200 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £508 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,707
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.