Case 3314818/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person, supported by Ms I Bulla, Cousin For the v RAVV Enterprise Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3314818/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person, supported by Ms I Bulla, Cousin For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and was not represented. Employment Judge Johnson gave judgment for the claimant after reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent to pay notice damages of £525.44, calculated as four weeks at £131.36 per week.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and had failed to pay holiday entitlement. It ordered payments of £353.56 for wages and £39 for holiday entitlement, making a total award of £918.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes the dismissal as wrongful and as a breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £354 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £39 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £918
- 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.