Case 2404434/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Smith v Plau Bistro Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404434/2023
- Decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's employment transferred to Plau Bistro Limited on or about 21 November 2022 under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. It then held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £376.25 and made no compensatory award.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's monetary claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, unpaid accrued unused holiday entitlement due at termination, and failure to give minimum statutory notice. It ordered payment of £684.74 for unlawful deductions, £992.87 for holiday pay, and £342.37 in damages for the notice default. The written record records the outcomes and awards, but it does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair because the claimant asserted a statutory right. | Upheld | — | £376 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages were found and the tribunal ordered payment of the net sum. | Upheld | — | £685 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay accrued unused holiday entitlement due on termination. | Upheld | — | £993 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give the claimant minimum statutory notice and awarded damages for that default. | Upheld | — | £342 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,396
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £376
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.