Case 1400156/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Zydrunas Misiunas 2. Alyirdas Misiunas v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400156/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail In
Parties
1 namedClaimant
1. Zydrunas Misiunas 2. Alyirdas Misiunas
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smail, sitting in chambers at Exeter Employment Tribunal on 13 August 2025, found that the claims brought by Zydrunas Misiunas and Alyirdas Misiunas against B B Build Ltd for (a) a redundancy payment, (b) unpaid wages and (c) accrued but unpaid holiday pay were well-founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Zydrunas Misiunas a redundancy payment of £8,920.11 gross, unpaid wages of £1,350 net, and accrued holiday pay (12 days) of £1,476.36 gross, totalling £11,746.47. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Alyirdas Misiunas a redundancy payment of £7,997.34 gross, unpaid wages of £1,350 net, and accrued holiday pay (15 days) of £1,845.45 gross, totalling £11,192.79.
The respondent was directed to pay the totalled amounts within 14 days. The judgment was issued in chambers and contains no narrative reasons beyond the findings that the claims were well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Combined redundancy payments awarded to both claimants: £8,920.11 (Z Misiunas) + £7,997.34 (A Misiunas). | Upheld | — | £16,917 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages awarded: £1,350 net to each claimant. | Upheld | — | £2,700 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but unpaid holiday pay: £1,476.36 (Z Misiunas, 12 days) + £1,845.45 (A Misiunas, 15 days). Tribunal listed under Working Time Regulations on gov.uk. | Upheld | — | £3,322 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,939
- 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.