Case 2400537/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Gazda v Topwest Ltd – Buck Village — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400537/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Gazda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 28 August 2020, before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, the claimant, Mrs K Gazda, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Woods. The tribunal recorded that the judgment was given orally at the hearing, so written reasons were not provided unless requested.
The tribunal's decision was that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's salary. It ordered payment of £113.79 gross in respect of notice pay and £490.43 gross in respect of accrued holiday which remained untaken on termination of employment.
The written record also includes the standard notice about the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating the relevant decision day as 22 September 2020 and the calculation day as 23 September 2020, but it does not specify any separate interest amount in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's salary. The award was made up of £113.79 gross in respect of notice pay and £490.43 gross in respect of accrued untaken holiday on termination. | Upheld | — | £604 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £604
- 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.