Case 2203919/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Amat v RQ Café Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203919/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson Representation
- Venue
- London Central in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Amat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim because he had not completed two years' continuous service. It also dismissed his claim that he was dismissed for asserting a statutory right.
The claimant succeeded on holiday pay. The tribunal found he was entitled to 15 days' accrued holiday entitlement and calculated the gross amount due at £1,680, using a daily rate of £14 x 8 x 15 based on a 28-week period.
The claimant also succeeded on notice pay. The tribunal found he was entitled to one week's notice, calculated at £560 gross using £14 per hour x 8 hours x 5 days. The judgment recorded that both sums could be paid gross or net after the respondent accounted for income tax and NIC to HMRC, and that the total gross amount payable was £2,240.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim dismissed because the claimant had not completed two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim that the claimant was dismissed for asserting a statutory right was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim succeeded for 15 days' accrued holiday entitlement, calculated at a gross daily rate of £14 x 8 x 15. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded; the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's notice calculated at £14 per hour x 8 hours x 5 days. | Upheld | — | £560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,240
- 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.