Case 1801269/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C v L Van Nes Swish A Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801269/2023
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was lodged on 28 February 2023 and no response was presented. Employment Judge Davies was satisfied that the claim could properly be determined on the material available under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages, pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday, and breach of contract in respect of notice pay were well-founded and succeeded. The judgment records that the contract provided for payment in euros, so the award is expressed in euros rather than sterling.
The respondent was ordered to pay €2,916.67 for wages for 8 November to 8 December 2022, €358.06 for holiday pay, and €673.07 as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice pay. The judgment also states that if any tax is payable on these sums, the claimant is responsible for paying it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for wages for 8 November to 8 December 2022. The judgment is a Rule 21 determination with no response presented. | Upheld | — | £2,917 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday. The judgment is a Rule 21 determination with no response presented. | Upheld | — | £358 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice pay. The judgment is a Rule 21 determination with no response presented. | Upheld | — | £673 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,948
- 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.