Case 6009066/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Oleksandr Trokhymchuk v La Tartine London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009066/2025
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sarkis Claimant
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Oleksandr Trokhymchuk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge L Sarkis, sitting alone with the assistance of a Russian interpreter, gave judgment in favour of the claimant (a Head Chef employed from 15 July 2024 to 28 January 2025) on his claims for unauthorised deductions, holiday pay, notice pay and unfair allocation of tips against La Tartine London Limited. The respondent's restaurant closed indefinitely after a landlord forfeiture on 20 January 2025; the claimant was made redundant by email on 27 January 2025.
The tribunal recorded by consent that the respondent owed gross wages of £4,365 for December 2024 and January 2025, less a £1,000 part-payment, leaving £3,365 due. The claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay (28 weeks of employment, 5.6 weeks' annual entitlement, none taken) was well-founded and £2,909.76 gross was awarded. The breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded: under s.86 ERA 1996 (under 2 years' service) the claimant was entitled to one week's notice, calculated on the average weekly earnings of £977.85 from the 12 weeks ending 26 December 2024 (excluding the period the restaurant was closed), but quantified by the judge at £770 net.
The claim under the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 succeeded: the respondent's allocation criteria (including 'overall productivity', 'quality of work performed' and 'discipline') were not clear and objective, and no documentary evidence supported the application of the criteria. Compensation of £67.34 was awarded to bring the claimant's tips to the mean per-worker amount for August-December 2024. The claims for additional financial loss caused by the deductions and for emotional distress were dismissed for want of evidence and want of jurisdiction respectively. Total award: £7,112.10. PDF text was truncated at 15,000 of 17,684 characters.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions for work in December 2024 and January 2025 (gross £4,365 minus £1,000 part payment in January 2025). Conceded by respondent. | Upheld | — | £3,365 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay - claimant entitled to 5.6 weeks/year, employed 28 weeks; full entitlement unused. | Upheld | — | £2,910 |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal/notice pay: one week's pay in lieu of notice (1 week notice for under 2 years' service); net sum, calculated at average weekly earnings of £977.85 over 12 weeks ending 26 December 2024. | Upheld | — | £770 |
| Other | Breach of Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 - tips not allocated transparently/objectively. Compensation of £67.34 to bring claimant's tips Aug-Dec 2024 up to mean amount per worker per month. | Upheld | — | £67 |
| Other | Claim for additional compensation for emotional distress and for financial loss caused by the unlawful deduction dismissed - no statutory cause of action for emotional distress; no evidence of interest payments or other financial loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,112
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023
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.