Case 2200488/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Sorany v Kitchen Labs Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200488/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms H Craik, Mr R Baber
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Sorany
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at London Central, sitting by CVP before Employment Judge Singh with Ms H Craik and Mr R Baber, heard Miss I Sorany's claims against Kitchen Labs Ltd. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £1,084.11, described as the gross sum deducted. It also upheld the breach of contract complaint for notice pay and ordered £578 in damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax treatment as post-employment notice pay.
The tribunal further found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because the respondent had failed to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended, and it ordered payment of £519, with tax or National Insurance to be dealt with by the claimant. It dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.104A, finding that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed because of a protected disclosure, and it dismissed the detriment complaint under s.47B on the same protected disclosure basis.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted; the claimant is responsible for tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,084 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was found well-founded and damages were assessed using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax treatment as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £578 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday accrued but untaken when employment ended; the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £519 |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.104A ERA 1996 was not well-founded; the tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed because of a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment complaint because of a protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,181
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.104A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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.