Case 2301678/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Polianskis v Riverside Works Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301678/2019
- Decision date
- 6 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Polianskis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent before Employment Judge Ferguson sitting alone on 6 September 2019. The Claimant, Mr D Polianskis, appeared in person and the Respondent, Riverside Works Ltd, was represented by Ms N Charaf, a company director.
The judgment records that the Claimant’s holiday pay complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive findings were made on that complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the net sum of £443.45. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from wages and was ordered to pay the net sum of £443.45. | Upheld | — | £443 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £443
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.