Case 3311172/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person with her husband present For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311172/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person with her husband present For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard at Cambridge Employment Tribunal via CVP on 10 November 2025, the claim was before Employment Judge King. The Claimant, Ms Maria Grazia La Ganga, attended in person with her husband and an Italian interpreter. The Respondent, Signorelli Deli Limited, did not attend.
The tribunal found that the Claimant suffered an unlawful deduction from her wages in respect of wages and holiday pay. The written record does not set out separate findings for wages and holiday pay or any additional legal reasoning beyond the disposal recorded in the judgment.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant unpaid wages in the sum of £743.60, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant suffered an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of wages and holiday pay. No separate apportionment was given between the two elements. | Upheld | — | £744 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £744
- 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.