Case 6000419/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Texeira Corbelo v Matthew Bates and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000419/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Texeira Corbelo
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent failed to present an ET3 response and did not appear at the Tribunal. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Tribunal found that the claimant contracted with the first respondent, who was also Operations Manager of WDG Limited, and issued a rule 22 judgment against the first respondent.
The first respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP 386.00 in respect of unpaid wages for tiling work on 30 September 2024 and 1 October 2024. The claimant did not attend, and the claim against the second respondent was not established and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 judgment issued against the first respondent for unpaid wages for tiling work on 30 September 2024 and 1 October 2024. | Upheld | — | £386 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against the second respondent was not established and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £386
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 Judgment pursuant to the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.