Case 3305999/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Winkler v JL20 Restaurants Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305999/2023
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Palmer Date
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Winkler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr T Winkler, brought claims against JL20 Restaurants Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The hearing took place at Bury St Edmunds on 24 and 25 January 2024 before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms V Hall, Consultant.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and the wrongful dismissal claim. It upheld the unlawful deduction of wages claim and made a declaration to that effect. The tribunal awarded the claimant £596.10 gross, with no deductions, in respect of that successful wages claim.
The published record contains the tribunal's dispositive findings and remedy only, and states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No separate written reasoning or breakdown of any wider compensation appears in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £596.10 gross without deductions. | Upheld | — | £596 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £596
- 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.