Case 1404294/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Dudek v Oishii Pan Asian Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404294/2023
- Decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Dudek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 10 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Dawson made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The respondent’s name was amended to Oishii Pan Asian Ltd.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered it to pay £4,108.60 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,016.
The hearing listed for 26 January 2024 was cancelled. The judgment was sent to the parties on 25 January 2024. The total sum recorded by the judgment is £6,124.60.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,108.60 gross under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £4,109 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,016. | Upheld | — | £2,016 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,125
- 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.