Case 6005621/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stefan Ghitu v Ardmore Hotels & Commercial Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005621/2025
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moyler REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Stefan Ghitu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within that period. It was presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim was allowed to proceed.
The complaint of breach of contract against the first respondent was well-founded. The tribunal found that Ardmore Hotels & Commercial Limited failed to give Mr Stefan Ghitu the notice required under the contract of employment. It awarded him £1,153.85 in damages, calculated using gross pay because the tribunal considered that he was likely to have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. The claim against the second respondent was also dismissed because Mr Ghitu was not an employee or worker of that respondent at the relevant time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to give the claimant the notice required under the contract of employment. The award was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim against the second respondent was dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker of that respondent at the relevant time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,154
- 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.