Case 3303015/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1 Mr P Baiano 3303015/2024 2 Mrs S Ibrahimi 3303485/2024 3 Mr V Marek 3303805/2024 4 Mr P Simko 3303158/2024 5 Mr S Nixon 3304032/2024; 3304033/2024 6 Miss Z Gryllaki 3304034/2024 7 Mr S Bedford 3304036/2024 8 Mr J Finnis 3304035/2024 9 Mr A Rae 3304037/2024 10 Miss J Blythe 3304038/2024 v Complete Restaurant Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303015/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1 Mr P Baiano 3303015/2024 2 Mrs S Ibrahimi 3303485/2024 3 Mr V Marek 3303805/2024 4 Mr P Simko 3303158/2024 5 Mr S Nixon 3304032/2024; 3304033/2024 6 Miss Z Gryllaki 3304034/2024 7 Mr S Bedford 3304036/2024 8 Mr J Finnis 3304035/2024 9 Mr A Rae 3304037/2024 10 Miss J Blythe 3304038/2024
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent operated a restaurant where the ten claimants worked in various roles. All claimants were dismissed without notice by a letter dated 31 January 2024 citing significant financial difficulties. The respondent had indicated in its ET3 response that it did not contest any part of the claims and did not attend the hearing, having written on 9 January 2025 to say it was in a difficult financial position. Employment Judge Dick proceeded to determine the claims under what was then rule 21 (now rule 22).
The Tribunal found that every claimant had well-founded claims for statutory notice pay as damages for breach of contract, and that those who had been employed for more than two years were entitled to statutory redundancy payments under section 163 ERA 1996. None of the claimants were paid wages for January 2024, giving each a well-founded claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, and some had received less than they were due for December 2023. The Tribunal also upheld unauthorised deduction claims relating to unpaid tronc (tips) between November 2023 and January 2024, accepting evidence on oath from Mr Baiano (the former restaurant manager) about how tronc was collected and distributed.
Mr Marek's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal after he clarified he only sought notice pay, redundancy pay and arrears. The Judge refused Mr Rae's late application to amend to add a holiday pay claim on the basis the respondent had not had notice of it, but allowed amendments to add tronc and expenses claims for some claimants on the basis the respondent would suffer no material prejudice. Awards for expenses (claimants 7, 9 and 10) were upheld on evidence that the written contract provided for reimbursement on production of receipts, which had been provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payments under s.163 ERA 1996 awarded to claimants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 per column C of Table 1. Statutory weekly cap of GBP 643 applied to claimants 1, 4 and 9. | Upheld | — | £21,552 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay (column D) awarded to all ten claimants as gross damages for breach of contract (total approx GBP 21,787) and expenses (column H) awarded to claimants 7, 9 and 10 as net damages (total approx GBP 278). | Upheld | — | £22,065 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awards cover unauthorised deductions for December 2023 wages (claimants 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), January 2024 wages (all ten claimants) and unpaid tronc payments (claimants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) per columns E, F and G of Table 1. | Upheld | — | £28,055 |
| Unfair dismissal | Third claimant Mr V Marek's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal after he clarified at the hearing that he only sought notice pay, redundancy pay and arrears of pay. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £71,672
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 (now rule 22)
- rule 13(1)(b) (now rule 14)
- rule 13(4)
- rules 68 to 70
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.