Case 3301820/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Buon Appetito Reading Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301820/2023
- Decision date
- 20 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Buon Appetito Reading Limited and upheld the claimant’s claims for unauthorised deductions from wages under s13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and breach of contract for unpaid notice. It found the claimant’s gross annual wage was £24,000, with a gross monthly wage of £2,000, a gross weekly wage of £461.54, and a gross daily wage of £92.31.
On the wages claim, the tribunal accepted that December 2022 wages of £2,000 were unpaid, together with January 2023 wages of £1,200.03, accrued but untaken holiday pay of £2,630.84, and pension contributions of £414.40 that had been deducted from pay but retained by the respondent. On the breach of contract claim, it found the claimant was contractually entitled to three weeks’ notice pay, assessed at £1,384.62 gross. The total sum ordered to be paid was £7,629.89, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment upheld the claim under s13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of unpaid December 2022 wages (£2,000), unpaid January 2023 wages (£1,200.03), accrued but untaken holiday (£2,630.84), and retained pension deductions (£414.40). | Upheld | — | £6,245 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld the breach of contract claim for unpaid notice, assessed at three weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,630
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.