Case 1802270/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Powierski v The Mosaic Spa Company PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: BY TELEPHONE (BT MEET ME) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802270/2021
- Decision date
- 16 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Powierski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote preliminary hearing before Employment Judge JM Wade on 16 June 2021. The claimant, Mr A Powierski, appeared in person. The respondent, The Mosaic Spa Company, did not appear. The tribunal noted that no response had been presented by the return date, although a response form was later uploaded on 4 June 2021 without any accompanying explanation for lateness or an application for an extension of time.
The tribunal treated the matter as suitable for a Rule 21 judgment because there was sufficient information on the file. The claimant had also sent an email on 9 June 2021 with further information, and the tribunal confirmed information on the file in his first language with him. The judgment records that the respondent’s defence, found after the hearing had started, was inconsistent with the claimant’s text message exchanges, but the tribunal did not need to determine that further because the response was not in time.
The claimant’s complaints of unlawful deduction from wages and Regulation 14 holiday pay on termination of employment succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay gross sums of £625, described as 50 hours at £12.50, and £375 for holiday pay. The judgment also stated that it would be for the claimant to account for any tax or national insurance on those sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment after no response was presented in time. | Upheld | — | £625 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded Regulation 14 holiday pay on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.