Case 3312169/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Thiago Bezerra Dos Santos v My Gusto Delivery Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312169/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Cline
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Thiago Bezerra Dos Santos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading by CVP on 15 July 2022 before Employment Judge Robert Cline. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to notify the respondent of the hearing and proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The claimant confirmed that case number 3312170/2020 was a duplicate claim created in error and was withdrawn.
On the surviving claim, the tribunal found that My Gusto Delivery Limited was in breach of contract because it had failed to pay the claimant salary and notice pay. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £37,500 within 14 days.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,606.29 within 14 days. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the respondent had breached contract by failing to pay salary and notice pay. | Upheld | — | £37,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £4,606 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £42,106
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.