Case 2302371/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs Ana Orza (2) Mr Petru Orza v Divine Motions Healthcare Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302371/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs Ana Orza (2) Mr Petru Orza
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Evans sitting alone by video on 20 July 2023. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal dealt with two claims for unauthorised deductions from wages brought by Mrs Ana Orza and Mr Petru Orza against Divine Motions Healthcare Services Ltd.
The tribunal upheld both claims. In relation to Mrs Ana Orza, it found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from her wages and ordered repayment of £1,550.00, described in the judgment as the amount deducted. In relation to Mr Petru Orza, it found unauthorised deductions from his wages and ordered repayment of £1,317.50, together with £328.10 as compensation for financial loss sustained and attributable to the deductions.
The total amount payable to Mr Petru Orza was therefore £1,645.60. No other heads of loss or remedies were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the first claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,550.00, described as the amount deducted. | Upheld | — | £1,550 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the second claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,317.50 as the amount deducted plus £328.10 for financial loss attributable to the deductions, making a total of £1,645.60. | Upheld | — | £1,646 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,646
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £328
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.