Case 6012643/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Dibnah v CoffeeB Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012643/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Dibnah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson, sitting at Manchester on 6 February 2025, heard the claim of Mr T Dibnah against CoffeeB Ltd. The respondent did not attend and had not filed a response or otherwise sought to contest the claim. The claimant appeared in person.
The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages to be well-founded. During the period 13 May 2024 to 4 August 2024 the claimant worked 402 hours at an agreed rate of £12 per hour, giving an entitlement of £4,824 gross against which only £3,479 had been paid; the respondent was ordered to pay the shortfall of £1,345 gross. The complaint of unpaid holiday pay was also well-founded: the claimant had accrued 49 hours of holiday that had not been taken by the end of his employment, and the respondent was ordered to pay £588 gross in respect of that entitlement.
The claim for unpaid tips was found not to be well-founded and was dismissed. The claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant worked 402 hours between 13 May 2024 and 4 August 2024 at £12 per hour (entitled to £4,824 gross, paid £3,479); shortfall of £1,345 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,345 |
| Holiday pay | 49 hours of accrued but untaken holiday on termination; £588 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £588 |
| Other | Claim for unpaid tips found not well-founded and dismissed. No specific statutory basis recorded in the judgment; classified as 'other'. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,933
- 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.