Case 2403916/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Pegasiou v The Mosaic Spa Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403916/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Pegasiou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge decided a determination could properly be made on that basis. The only substantive claim recorded in the judgment was breach of contract arising from pension deductions and contributions.
The tribunal found that, for the period from July 2021 until February 2022, the respondent deducted pension contributions totalling £1,189.60 from the claimant's pay but did not apply those sums to the claimant's pension. It also failed to pay employer pension contributions totalling £713.81. On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of contract.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,903.41 as damages for breach of contract. The judgment states that this sum is not subject to deductions for tax or national insurance. The accompanying notice also records the tribunal's interest information, including that interest would accrue only if the award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim on that basis. The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract for the period from July 2021 until February 2022 by deducting pension contributions totalling £1,189.60 from the claimant's pay but not applying them to the claimant's pension, and by failing to pay employer pension contributions totalling £713.81. | Upheld | — | £1,903 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,903
- 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.