Case 2401989/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Luzarraga v Belgravia Property Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401989/2022
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Luzarraga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response. The tribunal found that Belgravia Property Care Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr C Luzarraga's wages.
The claim therefore succeeded as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Luzarraga the gross sum of £5,181.00. The separate hearing listed for 6 January 2023 was cancelled.
The judgment was accompanied by the standard tribunal interest notice, which stated that interest may apply if the sum is not paid within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The notice recorded 20 June 2022 as the relevant judgment day, 21 June 2022 as the calculation day, and an 8% stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £5,181.00. | Upheld | — | £5,181 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,181
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.