Case 2303465/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Puleo v AAqua Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303465/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Puleo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 03 October 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Macey decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that AAqua Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr A Puleo's wages and ordered payment of £9,166.67 gross. It also found that Mr Puleo was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £9,166.67 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £3,173.10 gross. It also ordered £825.00 gross for unpaid pension employer contributions. The total sum ordered was £22,331.44, and the hearing listed for 23 February 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment recorded unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £9,167 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment recorded dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £9,167 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment recorded failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £3,173 |
| Other | Judgment awarded unpaid pension employer contributions; no more specific claim type is identified in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | £825 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,331
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.