Case 1402042/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P A Beato Martinez (1) Mrs D L Vallejo Ruiz (2) v Ardent Building Services (SW) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402042/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P A Beato Martinez (1) Mrs D L Vallejo Ruiz (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 22 June 2022. The respondent did not dispute the claims for unpaid holiday and unpaid wages prior to the respondent's liquidation. Employment Judge Roper Date decided the matter without a hearing and made a determination on the papers.
For Mr P A Beato Martinez, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £600 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £912, making a total award of £1,512.
For Mrs D L Vallejo Ruiz, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £608 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £720, making a total award of £1,328. The combined total payable under the judgment was £2,840.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant: unauthorised deductions from wages; amount stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Holiday pay | First claimant: unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £912 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant: unauthorised deductions from wages; amount stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £608 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant: unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £720 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,840
- 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.