Case 2303431/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Jadzevicius v Mateusz Gurga — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303431/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Jadzevicius
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Jadzevicius, presented a claim in the London Employment Tribunal on 15 April 2024. The respondent, Mateusz Gurga, did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. The judgment does not set out further factual detail about the deductions in the extracted text.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,760 gross. No separate breakdown of the award is given in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,760 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,760 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,760
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.