Case 2404176/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Decker v Izakaya Staff Ltd T/a Dive Bar & Grill — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404176/2023
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Izakaya Staff Limited t/a Dive Bar & Grill, failed to present a valid response on time to the claims brought by C Francis and V Decker. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without a contested hearing.
For C Francis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £785.34. For V Decker, the tribunal likewise found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,500.00.
The judgment also records that the hearing listed for 18 July 2023 was cancelled. The accompanying notice states that interest may be payable if the sums remain unpaid more than 14 days after the relevant decision day, which was 6 July 2023, with interest to run from 7 July 2023 at 8% per annum, but no interest figure is quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in favour of C Francis and ordered payment of £785.34. | Upheld | — | £785 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in favour of V Decker and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,500.00. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,285
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.