Case 2200980/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. F. Mureddu v Motcombs Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200980/2022
- Decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. F. Mureddu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. On the papers, and without a hearing under Rule 21, Regional Employment Judge Wade decided that a determination could properly be made from the ET1 alone.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to allow Mr. F. Mureddu to take annual leave or pay him in lieu of that leave, and had also failed to pay wages owed to him. Those findings supported the claims under the Working Time Regulations and for unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal ordered Motcombs Ltd to pay Mr. Mureddu £1,112.64 and to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on that amount. The hearing listed for 6 June 2022 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to allow the claimant to take annual leave or pay him in lieu. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay wages owed to the claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,113
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.