Case 3200991/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr B Gareche v Brunswick East Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 3200991/2023
Decision date: 18 August 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Russell Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr B Gareche

Respondent

Brunswick East Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claim was issued in the London East Employment Tribunals on 6 June 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and that the claimant's breach of contract claim succeeded. The judgment does not record a quantified award at this stage.

The tribunal directed that remedy would be determined at a hearing listed for 2 October 2023. That hearing was also to consider the claimant's application for a preparation time order.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal made a rule 21 determination because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. Remedy was left to a further hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal made a rule 21 determination because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It held that the claimant's breach of contract claim succeeded. Remedy was left to a further hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.