Case 6013501/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Jake Pyne v Spaghetti Tree Restaurants Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013501/2025
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jake Pyne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Evans, sitting alone at London South (by video) on 27 November 2025, heard claims brought by Jake Pyne against Spaghetti Tree Restaurants Limited. The respondent's name was amended by consent. The claimant was represented by Ms Nicholls of counsel and the respondent by Ms Romano-White, a director.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded: the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages on the termination of his employment, and was ordered to pay £741.95, being the gross sum deducted. The Tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, holding that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and ordered payment of £598.34 (7.8 days' pay). In each case the claimant was made responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded; respondent ordered to pay the gross sum deducted on termination. | Upheld | — | £742 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint upheld under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; sum represents 7.8 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £598 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,340
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.