Case 3305456/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v B Peled — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305456/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms E Lewin, was employed by the respondent, Barak Peled, as head chef from 6 June 2021 to 26 January 2022. She worked an average of 60 hours per week over 6 days, was paid £12 per hour, and was never given a written contract of employment.
The tribunal found that by the end of the employment she was entitled to 180.3 hours of paid leave, calculated as £2,163.60. The claimant accepted that her payslips for November and December 2021 showed holiday pay of £446.40 and £528.00 respectively, and that a further £459.47 was paid in March 2022. That meant she had received £1,433.87 in total holiday pay.
The remaining balance due was therefore £729.73, and the claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeded in that amount. The respondent did not attend the hearing, but the notice of appearance suggested he believed he could deduct sums said to be owed to him for matters such as food wastage and cleaning costs. The tribunal noted that, because there was no written contract of employment, there was plainly no contractual provision entitling him to make such deductions, and it referred to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeds in the sum of £729.73. | Upheld | — | £730 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £730
- 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.