Case 2307866/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Miguelez v Hugo Ushida and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307866/2020
- Decision date
- 5 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Miguelez
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 30 November 2020. The Employment Judge recorded that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time and proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal therefore determined the matter on the papers and made findings on the claimant's money claims without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £553.50 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,656 net as damages.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £234.69. The total sum payable was £2,444.19, and the judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any payments owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under rule 21; respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and was ordered to pay £553.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £554 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages were ordered at £1,656 net. | Upheld | — | £1,656 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £234.69. | Upheld | — | £235 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,444
- 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.