Case 3305312/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B S Kovacs v Chef’s Eye Tech Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305312/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B S Kovacs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B S Kovacs, brought claims against Chef’s Eye Tech Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), and unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing took place at Watford by video on 3 to 4 June 2025 before Employment Judge Bradford. The written judgment records that all three claims were not well-founded.
The unfair dismissal complaint under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. The wrongful dismissal claim, advanced as a claim for notice pay, was also dismissed. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996, stated to relate to the period August 2022 to February 2024, was likewise dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of the period August 2022 to February 2024; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.