Case 6006789/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Sato v C & A Inns Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6006789/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Sato
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Sato worked as Head Chef for C & A Inns Limited from 16 October 2023 to 10 May 2024. The hearing took place in Nottingham on 28 November 2024 before Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone. The Respondent did not attend or have representation. Reasonable adjustments were made because the Claimant is Japanese, profoundly deaf, does not speak English, can lip read only to a limited extent, and no JSL interpreter was available.
The tribunal upheld the holiday pay claim. In the reasons, the Judge accepted the Claimant's evidence that he was owed holiday pay because the Respondent did not attend to rebut it, although it had sent a schedule of payments without commentary. The operative paragraph states £1,353.76, while the reasons refer to £1,353.85 and the overall total award of £2,584.61 is consistent with £1,353.85 plus the payslip award.
The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed. The Claimant said he worked 50 hours most weeks and should have been paid for an additional 10 hours each week, but he had no records or calculations to support that case. The contract of employment provided that hours over 40 in a week did not entitle him to further payment unless there was a specific agreement to the contrary, and no such agreement was produced.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant had not been given all of his payslips and awarded the equivalent of 2 weeks' wages, £1,230.76, as compensation for that breach. The Judge noted that the alleged mortgage consequences were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction to compensate. The total award was £2,584.61.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment's operative paragraph states £1,353.76, but the reasons at paragraph 6 refer to £1,353.85 and the total award of £2,584.61 is consistent with £1,353.85 plus £1,230.76. | Upheld | — | £1,354 |
| Other | Claim concerned the Respondent's failure to provide all payslips. The tribunal said it could not award for the mortgage consequences mentioned by the Claimant, but awarded 2 weeks' wages as compensation for the breach of the right to an itemised payslip. | Upheld | — | £1,231 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Claimant alleged he should have been paid for an extra 10 hours each week worked over 40 hours, but he had no records or calculations and the contract said hours over 40 did not attract further payment absent a specific agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,585
- 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.