Case 6004125/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Flexer v Mediterranean Restaurant Brighton Limited (In voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004125/2025
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Flexer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's claims for holiday pay, notice pay, a redundancy payment and arrears of pay, described as unauthorised deductions from wages, were dismissed on withdrawal.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and the tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also found there was a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event after a four-week consultation period.
The respondent was ordered to pay a compensatory award of £2074.07. The judgment states that this was the actual sum payable after deductions or uplifts and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as notice pay and dismisses it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as arrears of pay and unauthorised deductions from wages, dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was well-founded. The tribunal found a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event after a four-week consultation period. | Upheld | — | £2,074 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,074
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,074
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.