Case 1401144/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cojana v Bedford Place Pub Co Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401144/2022
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cojana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 26 March 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Rayner decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Bedford Place Pub Co Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr M Cojana's wages and ordered it to pay £508.59 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £726.92.
The judgment records a total sum payable of £1,235.51. No separate award for interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £508.59 gross. | Upheld | — | £509 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £726.92. | Upheld | — | £727 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,236
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.