Case 2402445/2022 · Employment Tribunal
T Balassa v Mach Recruitment Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402445/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
T Balassa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined without a response.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of an attendance bonus, an overtime bonus, and a pay rise that had not been applied. It ordered payment of gross sums of £50.00, £17.94, and £30.00 for those items.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £40.80. The total amount ordered to be paid within fourteen days was £138.74.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment identifies unauthorised deductions for attendance bonus, overtime bonus, and a pay rise not applied, awarded as gross sums of £50.00, £17.94, and £30.00 respectively. | Upheld | — | £98 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awards £40.80. | Upheld | — | £41 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £139
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - 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.