Case 1311390/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Biobrade Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1311390/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Soltys worked for the business from 3 June 2019 until 20 November 2020. The tribunal found that the employing company at the end of the employment was Biobrade Limited, following the February 2020 name change from Sub-4 Ltd. The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because he had less than two years' service.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the contract accepted on 14 May 2020 provided for 28 days' statutory annual leave including bank holidays, with a holiday year running from 1 April. By the time employment ended the claimant had accrued 18 days but had taken 22.5 days. The respondent's leave records were accepted, and the tribunal found the respondent had already paid him at the normal rate for the leave taken, so there was no unpaid holiday pay; instead, the respondent was entitled to deduct £344 for leave taken in excess of entitlement.
On wages, the tribunal accepted that the claimant should have received net salary for November 2020 after lawful deductions for tax, national insurance and excess holiday pay, and the operative judgment ordered £856 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. The reasons also discuss a £440 deduction from final pay, with £96 described as unlawful, but the judgment's order awards £856. The tribunal also rejected the respondent's attempt to recover £1,450 training costs because the training predated the later contract and the respondent had summarily terminated employment without grounds to invoke clause 26(a).
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at the outset because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 18 days had accrued by termination, accepted the respondent's records that 22.5 days had been taken, and held the £344 deduction for leave taken in excess of entitlement was lawful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The operative judgment ordered £856 for unpaid net salary due in November 2020. The reasons also discuss a £440 final-pay deduction, of which £96 was said to be unlawful, but the award at the start of the judgment is £856. | Upheld | — | £856 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £856
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulations 13 to 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 15(3) of the 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.