Case 2306502/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr K Luong (2) Mr J D Long (3) Miss S H Seo (4) Miss S Zhang (5) Mrs L P Pomares (6) Mrs D Monteiro-Morales (7) Mr D O EkunweFuejo (8) Mr Y Lee
The claims in case numbers 2306502/2024 to 2306509/2024, and the separate claim number 6009178/2024 for the Fifth Claimant, were heard together in London South on 1 April 2025. The claims against Mr R D Cafagna were withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. All 4 One Catering Ltd did not present a valid response in time, so Employment Judge Ramsden determined the case on the available material under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024. The protected disclosure complaints pleaded on the claim form were also withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed ordinary unfair dismissal because none of the claimants had the two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It upheld claims for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the same Act, finding unpaid wages and service charges, and pension deductions that were not paid across to the pension scheme. It also upheld holiday pay claims under regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claimants.
On notice pay, the First, Fifth and Seventh Claimants were not found entitled to notice because they had worked for less than a month and had no written contract of employment. The Second Claimant received one week's pay, and the Fourth and Eighth Claimants received four weeks' pay, for wrongful dismissal. The Fifth Claimant also received two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because no statement of initial employment particulars was provided. The tribunal separately declared a breach of section 8 ERA 1996 in relation to itemised pay statements, but made no further award on that point. Because the grievance about unpaid wages had been ignored, the tribunal applied a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the total gross award was £29,464.47.
This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | None of the claimants had the two years' service required by section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Aggregate of unpaid wages, service charges and pension deductions found due under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £17,820 |
| Working time regulations | Aggregate holiday pay due to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claimants under regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,163 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Aggregate notice pay awarded to the Second, Fourth and Eighth Claimants. | Upheld | — | £3,693 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The First, Fifth and Seventh Claimants were not found entitled to notice because they had worked for less than a month and had no written contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Fifth Claimant was not provided with a statement of initial employment particulars; the tribunal made a two-week award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Other | The tribunal found a failure to provide accurate itemised pay statements under section 8 ERA 1996, but made no further monetary award beyond a declaration. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure complaints of detriment and dismissal were withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
The 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.
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.