Case 2207008/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Muse First v BNBUDU Limited trading as Buddha-Bar Restaurant Second Respondent: UKRO Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207008/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Muse First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Muse had worked as kitchen staff at Buddha-Bar Restaurant since 10 September 2018. The tribunal found that BNBUDU Limited, trading as Buddha-Bar Restaurant, went into creditors' voluntary liquidation on 20 February 2020 and that the claimant's employment transferred to UKRO Ltd around that time. It also found that he remained employed and was placed on furlough from 19 March 2020.
On the documents before it, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was paid fortnightly in arrears. A typical payslip from 2 June 2019 showed gross pay of £931.83 and net pay of £742.06. The tribunal treated furlough pay as 80% of the claimant's net wages, which it calculated as £745.47 gross and £593.65 net per fortnight. It compared that entitlement with bank payments totalling £1,833.15 and corresponding payslips showing gross payments totalling £1,860.37.
The tribunal calculated that the claimant should have received 22 fortnightly gross payments of £745.47 between April 2020 and January 2021, amounting to £16,400.34 gross. It found that he had therefore been underpaid by £14,539.97 gross and ordered UKRO Ltd to pay that amount, less any required deductions, within 14 days of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned underpayment of furlough pay. The tribunal found that UKRO Ltd had not paid the correct amount and ordered payment of the difference, less any required deductions, against the second respondent only. | Upheld | — | £14,540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,540
- 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.