Case 1601832/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Pavlov v Mec Fire Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601832/2021
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Pavlov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 23 November 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge made a determination 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 for unpaid pay for the period 01 November 2021 to 14 November 2021. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr R Pavlov the gross sum of £2,894.85.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's unpaid expenses, in breach of contract, and ordered payment of £880.91. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee National Insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for unpaid pay for 01 November 2021 to 14 November 2021 and awarded the gross sum stated. | Upheld | — | £2,895 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's unpaid expenses in breach of contract and ordered payment of the amount stated. | Upheld | — | £881 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,776
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.