Case 3310163/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carlos Alberto Ferreria de Lemos v Mr Candido Rodrigues — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310163/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carlos Alberto Ferreria de Lemos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints despite the time limit issue, because it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time and it was presented within a reasonable period after the expiry of the limit. The respondent did not enter a response and did not attend the hearing.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £200. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £350 in damages for that breach.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £700. In addition, it ordered the respondent to pay £1,500 pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The total monetary awards set out in the judgment were £2,750.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Other | Additional award ordered pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,750
- 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.