Case 3301733/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Fatello v Buon Appetito Reading Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301733/2023
- Decision date
- 12 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Fatello
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 8 February 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to determine the claim.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £5,000. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,500 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £3,402. In addition, it made a further award of £1,400 as compensation for breach of contract. The judgment states that all figures are gross and may be subject to tax and national insurance deductions at source if required under PAYE regulations.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £3,402 |
| Breach of contract | A further award of compensation for breach of contract; the extracted text does not specify a more detailed contractual head. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,302
- 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.