Case 2413166/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Urban v Dar-Pol Recruitment Agency Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413166/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Urban
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 28 November 2024 before Employment Judge K M Ross, with the claimant appearing in person remotely from Poland and an interpreter present for him. The tribunal dealt with an application to amend the claim so as to include holiday pay of £384.89, an unlawful deduction of wages claim for £706, and a further claim for £220 described as money for worked hours.
The tribunal recorded that at a case management hearing on 5 September 2024 the claimant had confirmed that these were the claims he wished to bring. It held that the application to amend was not well-founded and refused it. As a result, there were no remaining claims for the Employment Tribunal to consider.
Because the amendment was refused and there were no remaining claims within the tribunal's jurisdiction, the claim was struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant sought to add a holiday pay claim for £384.89 in the amendment application. The tribunal refused the amendment, held there were no remaining claims within its jurisdiction, and struck out the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant sought to add an unlawful deduction of wages claim for £706, described in the judgment as 'theft of £1 for every hour worked off the books'. The tribunal refused the amendment, held there were no remaining claims within its jurisdiction, and struck out the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant also sought to add a £220 claim for 'being cheated out of worked hours'. The tribunal refused the amendment, held there were no remaining claims within its jurisdiction, and struck out the case. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.