Case 6022008/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Vladislav Belous v Sequin Restaurants Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022008/2025
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Vladislav Belous
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was held in Cardiff by video on 18 September 2025 before Employment Judge R Harfield. The Claimant, Vladislav Belous, did not attend. The clerk attempted to contact him and left a message, and the start of the hearing was postponed until 10:30, but the Claimant still did not attend.
The hearing was listed to determine complaints of unpaid wages, holiday pay, tips, and failure to provide rest breaks, as set out in the tribunal’s letter of 11 August 2025. Having considered the information available and made practical enquiries about the reason for the absence, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-attendance. The judgment was approved on 30 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 16 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of tips; dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unpaid wages; dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of holiday pay; dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint of failure to provide rest breaks; dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of 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.