Case 3315291/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P A Flores-Llano v Inari Sushi and Grill Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315291/2020
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P A Flores-Llano
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge King sat alone at Cambridge on 9 November 2022. The tribunal recorded that Mr P A Flores-Llano was an employee and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims brought against Inari Sushi and Grill Limited.
The judgment records that the claimant withdrew four claims. Those were: a claim under section 11 of the Employment Rights Act in respect of an itemised pay slip; a claim for unpaid sums under the National Minimum Wage; and claims for breach of Regulation 10 and Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations, each said to concern daily rest.
The tribunal stated that the withdrawn claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. No liability findings were made on the merits of the withdrawn claims, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under s11 Employment Rights Act in respect of an itemised pay slip; withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim for unpaid sums under the National Minimum Wage; withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for breach of Regulation 10 of the Working Time Regulations in respect of daily rest; withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for breach of Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations in respect of daily rest; withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.