Case 1400101/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Jukneviciute v Prestige Cleaning Experts Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400101/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Jukneviciute
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 12 January 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney Date determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 August 2022.
On the rule 21 determination, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,083.50 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £424.60.
The tribunal further found that mileage expenses were owing to the claimant and ordered payment of £59.20. The judgment records a total payable sum of £1,567.30.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and must pay £1,083.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,084 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £424.60. | Upheld | — | £425 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent owes the claimant mileage expenses. The extracted text reads '£ 59,20', but the total award recorded in the judgment indicates £59.20. | Upheld | — | £59 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,567
- 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.