Case 2210293/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Medina (1) and Ms R Beltre (2) v Four Kitchens Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210293/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A-M Boyle
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Medina (1) and Ms R Beltre (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 25 September 2023, Employment Judge A-M Boyle sat alone and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal corrected the respondent's name to Four Kitchens Ltd and removed Mr Jan Van Deeden as a respondent. It recorded that Ms E Medina had been employed as Head Chef from 24 October 2022 to 14 April 2023 at £14 per hour, and that Ms R Beltre had been employed as kitchen assistant from 1 August 2022 to 14 April 2023 at £11.50 per hour.
The tribunal calculated sums due on termination for unpaid salary, accrued holiday pay and notice pay. For Ms Medina it found £3,500 unpaid salary, £1,299.20 for 82.8 hours of accrued holiday, and £1,400 for two weeks' notice, totalling £6,199.20 gross. For Ms Beltre it found £2,656.50 unpaid salary, £684.25 for 59.5 hours of accrued holiday, and £1,062.60 for two weeks' notice, totalling £4,403.35 gross. The judgment ordered those gross sums to be paid less any tax and National Insurance due, for which the respondent was to account to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered payment of unpaid salary and notice pay to both claimants, but the judgment did not separate the award by legal head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found each claimant had accrued but untaken holiday on termination and awarded sums in lieu, but did not split the award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,603
- 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.