Case 2305715/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Creative Cooking Ltd (in place of 'Chef Byung') — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305715/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Rice was employed by Creative Cooking Limited at the Sushi Garden Restaurant in Brighton from 1 May 2023 as a chef on an annual salary of £22,000. The respondent did not attend the hearing and had not filed an ET3, but the tribunal was satisfied it could determine the claims on the material available. The claimant said he had been paid by Creative Cooking Limited, not 'Chef Byung', and the judgment substituted Creative Cooking Limited as respondent. The tribunal also recorded that he had not pursued a National Minimum Wage claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant had never been given a statement of terms and conditions, a written contract, or payslips. It accepted that he worked up to and including 22 August 2023 and that his pay for that month should have been £1,301.67, but he had only been paid £646.15, so £655.52 was an unexplained shortfall and an unauthorised deduction from wages. It also found that he was owed £420.96 for accrued but untaken annual leave, which the respondent had already acknowledged in correspondence with ACAS.
On notice, the tribunal recorded that no longer notice period had been agreed. It applied the statutory notice position under section 86 ERA 1996 and assessed one week's pay at £423.08. Because the claim included a Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002 claim and the respondent had been in breach of section 1(1) ERA 1996 when proceedings began, the tribunal made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It found no exceptional circumstances and increased the award by the maximum four weeks' pay, namely £1,692.32, noting the complete failure to provide payslips and the absence of any employment statement.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a shortfall in August wages. It calculated that the claimant had worked 71% of a month, worth £1,301.67, but had been paid £646.15, leaving £655.52 unpaid. | Upheld | — | £656 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent had acknowledged in ACAS correspondence that the claimant was entitled to £420.96 for accrued but untaken annual leave, but it was not paid. | Upheld | — | £421 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as a claim for unpaid notice and awarded one week's pay, calculated by reference to the claimant's annual salary of £22,000 and the statutory notice period in section 86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £423 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,192
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
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.