Case 2408956/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kobi Mates v Box Restaurants Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408956/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge SHOTTER
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kobi Mates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response within the appropriate period, so judgment was entered for the claimant in default. On that basis, the tribunal held that Mr K Mates had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that that claim was well-founded.
The tribunal ordered Box Restaurants Ltd to pay unpaid wages of £705.81. It also found that the claimant had not been provided with a statement of terms and conditions of employment in accordance with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered compensation of two weeks' gross pay in the sum of £856.90.
The judgment notice records that interest would apply under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if sums remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, which was recorded as 10 May 2022, with the calculation day as 11 May 2022 and the stipulated rate as 8%. The judgment itself does not quantify any separate interest award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages under section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered payment of unpaid wages in this sum. | Upheld | — | £706 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been provided with a statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 ERA 1996 and awarded two weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £857 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,563
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- 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.