Case 2208998/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Kotey v Soho Restaurants Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208998/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sullivan. No
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Kotey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claim was presented. Under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, the tribunal therefore treated the claimant’s complaints for unpaid wages and unpaid accrued holiday pay as succeeding. The notes record that the claim had originally been brought against "Lalaland", but the contract of employment showed that the employer was Soho Restaurants Ltd, so the respondent name was amended and the claim re-served on that company.
The tribunal made an award of £2,167 gross, described as two weeks’ pay plus accrued holiday pay, payable by Soho Restaurants Ltd to Miss T Kotey. The judgment does not split the sum between the two heads of claim, and it does not record any separate award for interest or any other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded on a Rule 21 basis because no response was presented. The judgment records that the respondent later amended was Soho Restaurants Ltd. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay succeeded on a Rule 21 basis. The award was not split between the wage and holiday elements. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,167
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.