Case 3323609/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Davoodi v Hollywood Pizza & Chicken — 2021
- Case reference
- 3323609/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Davoodi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely on the papers, with Mr M Davoodi appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr N Mati, manager. Employment Judge S Moore decided the matter on 12 February 2021. No oral hearing was held because it was not practicable and the tribunal considered the issues could be determined remotely.
The claim for unpaid wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal awarded Mr Davoodi £236.61 gross on that claim. The claim for compensation for untaken holiday under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 also succeeded, with an award of £36.12 gross.
The separate claim for compensation for refusing to allow a rest break under regulation 30(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed. The judgment records a total amount payable to the claimant of £272.73 gross, being the sum of the two successful monetary claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages pursuant to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996; awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £237 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for compensation for untaken holiday under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £36 |
| Working time regulations | Claim for compensation for refusing to allow the Claimant a rest break under regulation 30(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £273
- 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.