Case 1805731/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v The Burger Trading Group UK — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805731/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded and awarded £525 for 50 hours worked but unpaid at £10.50 per hour. It also found the claimant’s claim for pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday well-founded and awarded £56.70 for 5.4 hours of holiday pay. The judgment recorded that any tax on those sums, if payable, was the claimant’s responsibility.
The tribunal further found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. Relying on s.38 Employment Act 2002, it said there were no exceptional circumstances to disapply an award, but it was not just and equitable to award four weeks’ pay. It therefore made a further award of £262.50, bringing the total payable to £844.20.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for 50 hours worked but not paid at £10.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 5.4 hours of accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £57 |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal said there were no exceptional circumstances and made a two-week award rather than four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £263 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £844
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.