Case 1805887/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Draghici v Atalian Servest Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805887/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilkinson Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Draghici
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unpaid wages and accrued but untaken holiday pay. The respondent accepted that some wages and holiday pay had previously been outstanding, but said these sums had been paid through the July 2022 payslip and a further payment made on 5 April 2023.
On wages, the tribunal compared the Timegate records, Fire Register records and payslips. It found that the claimant had been paid for the hours recorded, including 12 hours of backpay in July 2022 and a further 12 hours paid in April 2023. The claimant was unable to identify further unpaid hours, and the tribunal found he had not discharged the burden of proving any additional unpaid wages.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the respondent's calculation that the claimant had accrued 7.5 days of untaken holiday, worth £945 gross. It found that £504 had been paid in July 2022 and £441 in April 2023, and that the claimant had received the relevant payments. The claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant had been paid for all hours worked, including 24 hours of underpaid wages identified by the respondent and subsequently paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 7.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday pay totaling £945 gross, and that this had already been paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- balance of probabilities
- breach of contract
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.