Case 2415165/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ursu v Liverpool Road Leisure Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415165/2021
- Decision date
- 19 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 11 December 2021 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the material before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £880, with any appropriate tax and National Insurance deductions to be accounted for to HMRC. The judgment directed that the sum be paid within 14 days of the date of judgment.
The claimant's holiday pay claim did not proceed to a substantive determination because it was withdrawn. The judgment records that the holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The accompanying interest notice states that if the award remained unpaid after 14 days, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate of 8% from 20 August 2022, but no separate interest sum was awarded 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 the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £880. | Upheld | — | £880 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £880
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.