Case 8002507/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Gordon v Cove Restaurant Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002507/2025
- Decision date
- 16 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Gordon claimed that Cove Restaurant Limited had made an unlawful deduction from his wages because he received less in gratuities at the end of his employment than he believed was due. The respondent said he had been paid under its policy of allocating 10% of quarterly tips among casual staff. The claimant had no evidence that the policy differed from that description, no evidence of the tips received during the relevant quarter, and no evidence that his payment was below his entitlement. The Tribunal also found that the respondent's expression of a desire to settle in its ET3 was not a concession that an underpayment had occurred.
Applying sections 13 and 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal stated that the claimant bore the burden of proving the amount properly payable and that the amount paid was less. Although the relevant evidence would not ordinarily have been in his possession, he had not sought an order compelling its production despite having been informed of that option. The Tribunal concluded that he had not proved that he was paid less than was properly payable and dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim as not well-founded. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned gratuities (tips) paid at the end of the claimant's employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(3) Employment Rights Act 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.