Case 1309390/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Green v Café Morso Droitwich Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309390/2022
- Decision date
- 16 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hussain Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Green, succeeded on two wage-related claims against Café Morso Droitwich Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £128.63 as a gross sum for the amount unlawfully deducted.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim for payment due under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded. It ordered payment of £72.69 in respect of 7.92 hours of untaken but accrued holiday, describing that sum as gross and requiring the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance.
The judgment records a total sum of £201.32 payable to the claimant within 14 days. The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons were provided in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £128.63. | Upheld | — | £129 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded and ordered payment of £72.69 for 7.92 hours of untaken but accrued holiday, gross and subject to tax and national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £73 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £201
- 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.