Case 6029666/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A C Tortora Patane v Sara Davey — 2025
- Case reference
- 6029666/2025
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A C Tortora Patane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London Central Employment Tribunal on 11 August 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Webster determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that the claim could properly be decided on the papers without a hearing. The listed hearing of 10 February 2026 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £477.50 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's additional expenses and ordered payment of £146.87. The respondent was ordered to pay £624.37 in total.
The judgment is a short rule 22 determination and contains no extended reasoning, no reference to specific legal tests, and no panel members beyond the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; awarded £477.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £478 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's additional expenses; awarded £146.87. Judgment does not specify the precise statutory basis; classified as breach_of_contract on the basis of unpaid contractual expenses. | Upheld | — | £147 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £624
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.