Case 2402752/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mazurowski v RG Recruitment Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402752/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mazurowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21. The tribunal found that RG Recruitment Group Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay Mr M Mazurowski the gross sum of £2,307.68.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. On that basis, it ordered the respondent to pay damages in the net sum of £1,841.20. No discrimination or dismissal unfairness findings were recorded in the judgment extracted here.
The judgment also included the standard notice about interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that sums not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day would carry interest at the stipulated rate, but no separate interest amount was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,307.68. | Upheld | — | £2,308 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered payment of damages in the net sum of £1,841.20. | Upheld | — | £1,841 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,149
- 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.