Case 6010808/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Posa v Jashoda Ltd HELD AT: London South (CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010808/2025
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Posa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Posa worked for Jashoda Ltd as a bar manager at The Ravensbury from 13 November 2024 to 12 January 2025. The tribunal found that the claimant was given the 2025 contract, not the 2024 contract relied on by the respondent, and that he was not required to clock in or clock out and did not receive payslips during his employment. It preferred the claimant's evidence on the hours worked, supported by the rotas and WhatsApp messages, over the respondent director's indirect evidence about his usual hours.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that Mr Posa worked on average 45 hours a week and 405 hours in total over the period. Applying the hourly rate of £11.44 referred to in the 2025 contract, it calculated that he should have been paid £4,633.20 gross. After crediting the £2,554.88 gross actually paid, the tribunal found an unpaid balance of £2,078.32 gross and ordered the respondent to pay that sum.
On the service charge claim, the tribunal accepted that the restaurant's likely sales over the relevant period were £150,000, with 45% attributable to the restaurant and a 12.5% service charge generating a pool of £8,437. It found that the service charge would have been divided equally between the nine staff members who were not mainly club workers, giving the claimant 11.11% of the pool, or £937.44. After deducting the £70 cash tips he accepted receiving, it ordered payment of £867.44 gross.
On the itemised pay statement complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide pay statements despite receiving the relevant information from the claimant on 29 November 2024. Under ERA 1996 s.12(4), it awarded the equivalent of two weeks' unnotified deductions because the claim had been presented on 19 March 2025 and the relevant 13-week period started on 27 December 2024. That produced an award of £479.61 gross. The total sums ordered were £2,078.32, £867.44 and £479.61, making a total award of £3,425.37 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint for underpayment of wages for 13 November 2024 to 12 January 2025. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence and the rota/WhatsApp records, found he worked an average of 45 hours per week, and calculated the shortfall by reference to an hourly rate of £11.44. | Upheld | — | £2,078 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint for failure to pay the claimant his share of service charge for 13 November 2024 to 12 January 2025. The tribunal found he worked mainly in the restaurant, treated the service charge as part of wages, and calculated his share from an estimated pool of £8,437 less the £70 cash tips he accepted receiving. | Upheld | — | £867 |
| Other | Complaint for failure to provide itemised pay statements. The respondent did not dispute the failure, and the tribunal made an award under ERA 1996 s.12(4) based on two weeks' unnotified deductions. | Upheld | — | £480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,425
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- balance of probabilities
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.27(1)(ce) ERA 1996
- s.8(1) ERA 1996
- s.11 ERA 1996
- s.12(4) ERA 1996
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.