Case 1811261/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M Jedrzejewski v Trendz Catering Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1811261/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M Jedrzejewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 18 September 2024 and the respondent failed to present a valid response in time. The Employment Judge therefore decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Trendz Catering Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr. M Jedrzejewski's wages and had failed to pay his holiday entitlement. The judgment records a single gross award of £1,021.00 payable to the claimant.
The judgment does not record any split between the wage deduction element and the holiday entitlement element, and it does not record any additional remedy beyond the gross sum awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. The judgment records a single gross sum of £1,021.00 for the claim overall and does not split the award between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The judgment records a single gross sum of £1,021.00 for the claim overall and does not split the award between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,021
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.