Case 3320851/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ryan McGrath For the v Fizz Wine and Cocktail Bar Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320851/2021
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ryan McGrath For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 13 January 2023 before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone, the respondent did not attend and had not presented a response. The tribunal noted that the claimant had worked 146 hours in July, August and September 2021 and had taken 9 days, or 72 hours, holiday, but had not been paid for those hours. Her hourly rate was £11.
The tribunal accepted the claimant’s account and found the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages and/or breach of contract well founded. It calculated the unpaid amount as 218 hours at £11 per hour, producing a gross sum of £2,398 subject to tax and National Insurance deductions. The claimant was required to give credit for £800 already received on 6 September 2021.
The reasons also record that the respondent had been notified of the hearing on 31 May 2022, that a company search showed the respondent as active but with a proposal to strike off, and that the claimant said the respondent was no longer trading at its former address. The tribunal proceeded to hear the remedy hearing in the respondent’s absence.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment stated that the claimant’s claims of unauthorised deduction of wages and/or breach of contract were well founded. The tribunal ordered a single gross sum of £2,398 and recorded a credit for £800 already received. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,398
- 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.