Case 2204016/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Represented himself. For the v Berg Global Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204016/2023
- Decision date
- 16 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Represented himself. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central on 16 August 2023 before Employment Judge Lewis. The claimant represented himself. The respondent did not respond to the claim and did not attend.
The tribunal upheld the claim for untaken holiday in the termination year and awarded £583.44. The judgment states that this represented the statutory minimum annual holiday pro rata in the holiday year of termination and that the sum was gross pay, with the claimant responsible for any tax.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unpaid wages for January and February 2023 and awarded £5,000 gross, again with the claimant responsible for any tax. The claim for notice was not upheld because the tribunal found that the claimant had been given notice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for untaken holiday in the termination year; tribunal awarded the statutory minimum annual holiday pro rata in the holiday year of termination. Award stated to be gross pay. | Upheld | — | £583 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages for January and February 2023; award stated to be gross pay. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice was not upheld because the tribunal found the claimant was given notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,583
- 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.