The Ivy is facing a legal battle with a former waiter who claims the upmarket restaurant chain unfairly allocated him a share of tips and service charges – and refused to explain how his portion was calculated – despite a new law requiring fair and transparent distribution.

The part-time waiter, who resigned in June and asked not to be named, alleges constructive dismissal and says his share of a £31,562 monthly pot of tips and service charges at his branch was “totally unfair”.

He claims that for 43 hours’ work in March he initially received £46.34 in gratuities and service charges, later increased to £97.45. By his estimate, his hours accounted for around 2% of the total worked by staff that month – yet he received less than 1% of the total funds collected.

The Ivy disputes his calculations, describing them as “inaccurate and misleading”, and says an independent consultancy oversees its distribution process. The company has branded the ex-waiter a “disgruntled and discredited” former employee and vowed to challenge the claims at an April 2026 employment tribunal.

Under the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, 100% of service charges collected in a venue must be shared among workers in a fair and transparent way, and employees have the right to know how tips are allocated and distributed.

The Ivy, owned by Richard Caring’s Troia (UK) Restaurants, says it complies with the legislation via a “tronc” system, in which staff are allocated “tronc points” that determine their monthly share. However, employees are not told how those points are decided or how their allocation compares with other team members’.

A company spokesperson said: “We absolutely refute all the claims that are being made and will provide all the evidence necessary to disprove these allegations to the employment tribunal. We introduced a fair and transparent scheme after consultations with staff that is overseen by employee representatives and an independent, third-party business.”

The Ivy says revealing individual tronc allocations could breach employee privacy.

Employment lawyer Michael Newman of Leigh Day says the case could test the strength of the new legislation: “This was introduced to make the system fairer. Either the company has avoided it, or the law hasn’t achieved its purpose. This case could clarify if employers must provide more detail on service charge distribution.”

The waiter’s payslips did not separate personal tips from service charges, nor reveal how his share compared to kitchen staff or managers. He claims repeated requests for clarification from late 2023 went unanswered.

In April, he received a warning over alleged performance issues, which he disputes, and says he filed a formal request for details of his tip allocation around the same time. He resigned two months later.

The outcome of the tribunal could have far-reaching implications for hospitality employers and staff, potentially forcing greater transparency over how tips and service charges are divided.