Case 2409529/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Jastrzebski Respondent JH Cunliffe (CMT) Limited v Mr P Dawson, Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409529/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Jastrzebski Respondent JH Cunliffe (CMT) Limited
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, found that the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and succeeded. No written reasons were provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that further reasons would only be provided if requested in time.
The only monetary award recorded in the judgment was unpaid wages of £697.60 gross, payable by the respondent subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The claim was listed and determined as an unlawful deduction from wages claim rather than any discrimination, dismissal, or other employment claim.
The accompanying interest notice stated the relevant judgment day as 8 February 2021, the calculation day as 9 February 2021, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. The judgment itself does not record any separate interest sum as part of the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as unpaid wages in the gross sum of £697.60, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £698 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £698
- 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.