Case 1604168/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mayasergio v Flintshire Transport Services — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604168/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Mayasergio
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 21 September 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £625 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £6,630 damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,625 gross. The judgment records a total sum payable of £8,880 and states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance contributions that may be due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay £625 gross. | Upheld | — | £625 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £6,630 damages. | Upheld | — | £6,630 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay £1,625 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,625 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,880
- 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.