Case 2302971/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P R Tudoreanu v STR 48 Limited Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302971/2020
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P R Tudoreanu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined on 9 July 2021 by Employment Judge Pritchard under Rule 21, with the claimant appearing in person and no appearance by the respondent. The tribunal therefore proceeded on the material before it and made a liability determination in the claimant's favour on the pleaded money claims.
It found that STR 48 Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,185.80. It also found that the respondent had failed to compensate the claimant for accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment and ordered payment of £386.86.
No separate remedy breakdown beyond those two sums is recorded in the judgment, and no discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other claim findings appear in the extracted text. The monetary orders together total £1,572.66.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,185.80 under Rule 21, with the respondent not appearing. | Upheld | — | £1,186 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to compensate for accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment and ordered payment of £386.86 under Rule 21, with the respondent not appearing. | Upheld | — | £387 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,573
- 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.