Cases3309317/2023

Claimant v Buon Appetito Reading Ltd

24 April 2025Before Employment Judge Shastri-HurstWatfordon papers

Outcome

Partly successful£2,890

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in March and April 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response, and the claim was determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. The respondent failed to pay the claimant her contractual notice pay upon termination of employment.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for accrued but untaken holiday in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claimant was entitled to pro-rated holiday pay from 6 April 2023 to 30 April 2023.

Redundancy Paystruck out

The claim for contractual redundancy payment was struck out because the claimant did not have the requisite 2 years' service with the respondent as required under s155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' service with the respondent as required under s108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Facts

The claimant was employed by the respondent until 30 April 2023 with less than two years' service. The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages in March and April 2023, failed to pay notice pay upon termination, and did not pay accrued holiday pay. The respondent failed to present a valid response to the claim.

Decision

The tribunal upheld claims for unlawful deduction of wages (£2310), notice pay (£420), and holiday pay (£159.60), awarding a total of £2889.60. Claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay were struck out due to the claimant lacking the requisite two years' service. The judgment was made under rule 22 as the respondent failed to respond.

Practical note

Default judgments under rule 21/22 can still result in partial success where qualifying service periods prevent certain statutory claims from proceeding, highlighting the importance of employers responding to tribunal claims even when service issues exist.

Award breakdown

Notice pay£420
Holiday pay£160
Unpaid wages£2,310

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.16(1)ERA 1996 s.108ERA 1996 s.155Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.14(2)

Case details

Case number
3309317/2023
Decision date
24 April 2025
Hearing type
rule 21
Hearing days
Classification
default

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No