Case 2401874/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kaplewski v Zobra Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401874/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kaplewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment in Mr M Kaplewski v Zobra Limited was made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Batten Date recorded that a determination could properly be made of part of the claim on the papers.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,070 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £535.
The tribunal further found that the claimant's holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered the respondent to pay £214 gross. The total sum ordered by the judgment was therefore £1,819.
The written record of the decision was sent to the parties on 15 May 2023. The attached notice stated that, if unpaid after 14 days, interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 from 16 May 2023 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,070 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £535 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £214 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,819
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.