Case 3311604/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Duti v Devran Kitchen Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311604/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Duti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Duti was employed by Devran Kitchen Ltd as a waiter from 10 November 2019 to 5 July 2020. The tribunal found there was no written contract, that he was paid hourly at £8.25, and that the parties later agreed a furlough variation in March 2020 during the Covid closure. It accepted that his normal furlough salary was treated as £571.97 per month, corresponding to 16 hours per week, and found that he had taken no paid holiday during employment.
The tribunal found that on 5 July 2020 the claimant had worked two shifts earlier in July and attended work on 5 July while unpaid for June furlough money remained outstanding. A dispute over payment escalated into an argument. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the claimant resigned and instead found that Mr Elvan Acar, who was in day-to-day control of the restaurant, unambiguously dismissed him by forcing him to leave and making clear that he should not return. It rejected the respondent's account that the claimant had been told to come back and work out notice.
On liability, the tribunal held that the respondent had not proved conduct depriving the claimant of notice entitlement, so the statutory minimum notice period of one week applied. It awarded £139.52 for notice based on 16 hours per week at the National Minimum Wage rate of £8.72, and £49.68 for unpaid salary for 1 to 5 July 2020 after crediting the £50 paid on 5 July. It also rejected an uplift for furlough pay on the basis of the April 2020 minimum wage increase because no agreement provided for that.
For holiday, the tribunal applied regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and calculated a payment in lieu of unused leave of £511.60 using the period from 10 November 2019 to 5 July 2020. The operative monetary total ordered by the tribunal was £700.80.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract on 5 July 2020 and was entitled to one week's notice pay of £139.52. It also awarded £49.68 for unpaid salary for 1 to 5 July 2020, so the breach of contract recovery totalled £189.20. | Upheld | — | £189 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had taken no paid holiday during employment and was entitled to a payment in lieu under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It calculated the sum as £511.60, although paragraph 59 contains an apparent typographical reference to £511.50. | Upheld | — | £512 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the July shortfall was to be awarded as damages for breach of contract rather than as an unauthorised deduction from wages. It also found the claimant had been correctly paid up to 30 June 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £701
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- objective test for resignation/dismissal
- statutory minimum notice period
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1(1) National Minimum Wage Act 1998
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.