Case 4102863/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Danut Ionut Lungu v BRVS Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102863/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Danut Ionut Lungu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Danut Ionut Lungu was the respondent’s employee and worker for the purposes of the claims before it. The respondent filed no response and did not attend the hearing in Glasgow on 23 October 2023. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing, and no written reasons were requested.
The claim for unlawful deductions from wages was found to be well-founded. The tribunal ordered BRVS Services Limited to pay £3,500 gross to the claimant. The judgment records that this award was made on a gross basis, with the claimant responsible for any tax, national insurance and other deductions required by law.
The claim for unpaid notice pay as damages for breach of contract was also found to be well-founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,750 gross in compensation. This award was likewise made on a gross basis, with the claimant responsible for any deductions required by law.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim for unlawful deductions from wages was well-founded and ordered payment of £3,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claim for unpaid notice pay as damages for breach of contract was well-founded and ordered payment of £1,750 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,250
- 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.