Case 6023272/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. F. Mazzapica v Bella Roma Beckenham Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023272/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. F. Mazzapica
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 24 September 2025, Employment Judge Sudra sat alone by CVP video conference. The claimant, Mr F. Mazzapica, appeared in person and the respondent failed to attend.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaints of unpaid wages, holiday pay, and notice pay were made out and upheld. It also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars.
The tribunal awarded £1,803.92 for unpaid wages, £2,009.61 for accrued but untaken annual leave, £4,166.00 for unpaid notice pay, and £3,846.16 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The total award was £11,825.69, payable within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal awarded £1,803.92 for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £1,804 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal awarded £2,009.61 for accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £2,010 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal awarded £4,166.00 for unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,166 |
| Other | Tribunal awarded £3,846.16 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £3,846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,826
- 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.