Case 1804788/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Horsfall v Casa Yeadon — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804788/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Representation
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Horsfall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Horsfall brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to work at Casa Yeadon/Casa Pizza between 6 and 14 June 2020. The tribunal found that there was an oral and implied agreement for him to work as a cashier, but that the respondent intended the initial training period to be unpaid and that he was told this by the respondent's witnesses. On that basis, the tribunal held there was no entitlement to wages under the oral agreement itself.
The tribunal then considered the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. It found that Mr Horsfall was a worker, that the National Minimum Wage provisions applied, and that the work he carried out during the period was more than a short unpaid trial. In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal referred to government guidance on eligibility for the minimum wage and unpaid work trial periods, and noted that the claimant spent 54 hours at the takeaway performing real cashier tasks.
For remedy, the tribunal found that Mr Horsfall was 16 years old in June 2020, so the applicable minimum wage rate was £4.55 per hour. Although he claimed 54 hours, the tribunal reduced the hours by 8 because he had accepted that he was told he could leave early multiple times and chose to stay. The tribunal therefore ordered Casa Yeadon to pay £209.30, being 46 hours at £4.55 per hour.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded. The tribunal held that there was an oral and implied contract for the claimant to work as a cashier at Casa Pizza, that he was a worker, and that the National Minimum Wage provisions applied. It rejected the contention that no payment was due for the whole period, and awarded £209.30 for 46 hours at £4.55 per hour after reducing the claimed 54 hours by 8 hours because the claimant had been told he could leave early on multiple occasions. | Upheld | — | £209 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £209
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
- government guidance on eligibility for national minimum wage
- unpaid work trial periods guidance
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.