Case 2304146/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Pitchai v The Mint Room Restaurant — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304146/2023
- Decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 8 August 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Heath Date determined that a decision could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,500 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,400 gross.
The judgment records a total sum of £4,183.53 gross payable to the claimant. The extracted text does not explain how that total relates to the two head-specific amounts recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £3,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,500 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £1,400 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,184
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.