Case 2412871/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Vania v Breathe Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412871/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Vania
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Leach found that Breathe Services Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr Z Vania's wages. The deduction was made up of an underpayment of wages from July 2023 of £881.68 and unpaid commission of £400, producing a gross award of £1,281.68 on that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Vania's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 2.5 days on termination of employment. It ordered payment of £221.15 gross for that holiday pay. The judgment stated that Mr Vania would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising if tax was not deducted at source, and the total gross sum payable was £1,502.83.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 July 2024 and included the tribunal's standard interest notice, which stated that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest if unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day. No separate interest amount was assessed 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 an unauthorised deduction from wages comprising underpayment of wages from July 2023 (£881.68) and unpaid commission (£400.00). | Upheld | — | £1,282 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 2.5 days on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £221 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,503
- 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.