Case 1600683/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Rys v Pear Marketing Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600683/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Rys
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 7 April 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £225.00 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £960.00 gross in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,056.00 gross. The total amount payable was £2,241.00 gross, and the claimant was held responsible for any tax and employee national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £225.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £225 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £960.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £960 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,056.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,056 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,241
- 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.