Case 1803144/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kaye v Imperial Catering Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803144/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Armstrong Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kaye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 after Imperial Catering Services Limited failed to present a valid response in time. Employment Judge K Armstrong made a determination on the papers. The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr M Kaye's wages in relation to 4 weeks' wages and 1 week 5 days' notice pay, and ordered payment of £1,537.32 and £544.46 respectively, both net of tax and national insurance.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Kaye's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £640.55 net. It held that it had no jurisdiction to award compensation for failure to be enrolled in a pension scheme as part of an unauthorised deductions claim because pension enrolment is not included in the statutory definition of wages. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to award compensation for stress as part of the same claim. Mr Kaye confirmed at a case management hearing on 26 September 2022 that he did not bring a claim for detriment as a result of public interest disclosure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to 4 weeks' wages (£1,537.32 net) and 1 week 5 days' notice pay (£544.46 net). | Upheld | — | £2,082 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £640.55 net. | Upheld | — | £641 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,722
- 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.