Case 2304073/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v The Easy Dining Group Ltd T/a Terry's Pizza — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304073/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing. On the claimant's evidence, the tribunal found that he started work as a pizza chef at the respondent's Richmond restaurant on 28 August 2022, that he had agreed a rate of £18 per hour with the manager known as Daniel, and that a later written contract showing £15 per hour had not varied the agreed rate by the time he left. The tribunal also accepted that the contract entitled him to one week's notice.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed without notice on 14 September 2022 after being told to leave because two chefs had been recruited who were prepared to work for lower wages. It accepted that he had not been paid for the hours he had worked by the time of dismissal, that he later received £700, and that he had accrued about two days' holiday.
The remedy section awarded £938 for wages earned but not paid and £700 for holiday pay and notice pay, giving a total of £1,638. The opening judgment line records £2,064.00, but that figure is not reflected in the detailed remedy calculation set out later in the reasons and remedy section.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes the successful claim as breach of contract for failure to pay wages, holiday pay and notice pay. The opening judgment line states an award of £2,064.00, but the detailed remedy section at paragraph 12 totals £1,638.00; I have used the paragraph 12 figure. | Upheld | — | £1,638 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,638
- 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.