Case 3202331/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ervik v White Goose Bistro Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202331/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ervik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Shore heard the case at East London Hearing Centre by video on 19 March 2024. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal recorded that the correct name of the respondent was White Goose Bistro Ltd and amended the record accordingly.
The claimant succeeded on three monetary claims. The tribunal found that there had been an unauthorised deduction of wages and ordered payment of £209.50. It also found that accrued but unpaid holiday pay was due at the date of termination and ordered payment of £229.80.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to pay notice pay and ordered payment of £263.96. The judgment records that the total payable by the respondent to the claimant was £703.26.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages well-founded and ordered payment of £209.50 without deduction of income tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay at termination well-founded and ordered payment of £229.80 without deduction of income tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £230 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for breach of contract, being failure to pay notice pay, well-founded and ordered payment of £263.96 without deduction of income tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £264 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £703
- across all upheld claims
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.