Case 2200818/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v DrunchW1 Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200818/2023
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant replied to a bartender advert placed by the respondent, attended an interview, completed an unpaid trial shift on 16 September 2022, and then worked shifts on 22, 23 and 24 September 2022. The tribunal recorded that the respondent did not enter a response or appear at the hearing. It had before it the advert, rota documents, messages between the parties, the claimant’s invoice material, and the claimant’s oral evidence.
The tribunal was satisfied on all the evidence that the claimant had worked the hours claimed, at the agreed rates of pay and tips, and that he had not been paid any of his wages or tips. It therefore held that the claimant’s complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, based on unlawful deductions under section 13, was well-founded.
The award was stated in the reasons as £420 for wages and £210 for tips, making a total of £630.00. The judgment does not record any separate dismissal-related or discrimination remedy, and the award was limited to the unpaid sums found to be due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under s.23 ERA 1996 for unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996 was upheld. The reasons split the award as £420 wages and £210 tips, totalling £630. | Upheld | — | £630 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £630
- 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.