Case 2408541/2022 · Employment Tribunal
2nd Claimant: Mr Gracjan Filuda Mr Kryystof Rentz v Cheshiregate Property Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408541/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
2nd Claimant: Mr Gracjan Filuda Mr Kryystof Rentz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and had failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and decided that a determination could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, in the respondent's absence.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the 1st Claimant's wages, including basic wages and overtime, and ordered payment of £1,362.60 net. It made the same finding in relation to the 2nd Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,632.60 net.
The judgment records that the claims succeed and that further remedies would be determined at a remedy hearing. The tribunal also granted both claimants permission under rule 29 to amend their claim forms in relation to outstanding heads of loss and the amount of those claims, and it issued directions for the future conduct of the case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 1st Claimant (Mr Filuda); unauthorised deductions from basic wages and overtime. | Upheld | — | £1,363 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 2nd Claimant (Mr Rentz); unauthorised deductions from basic wages and overtime. | Upheld | — | £1,633 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,995
- 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.