Case 6012046/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Laurynas Stanaitis v Pastan Enterprise Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012046/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge HART Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Laurynas Stanaitis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 18 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal found the claimant's claim for outstanding holiday pay on termination of the contract well-founded and ordered Pastan Enterprise Limited to pay £1,208.77 net. It also found the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages for the period up to 22 May 2024 well-founded and ordered payment of £1,764.41 net.
The claim for redundancy pay was not well-founded because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate breakdown for other remedy components was recorded, and the bottom-line monetary awards in the judgment total £2,973.18 net.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,209 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,764 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the required 2 years' continuous service under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,973
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.