Case 3205085/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Marchel v EMGS Recruitment Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205085/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Marchel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 February 2023, before Employment Judge B Beyzade, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or make representations. The tribunal allowed the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of holiday pay for the period 23 May 2022 to 28 August 2022 and ordered payment of £154.64, subject to any required deductions for tax and national insurance.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for breach of Regulation 5 of the Agency Workers' Regulations 2010 in relation to a difference in pay for the period 22 August 2022 to 28 August 2022. The respondent was ordered to pay £13.20, again subject to any required deductions for tax and national insurance. The claimant's application for a preparation time order under Rule 76 succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £99.00 in respect of preparation time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages (holiday pay) for the period 23 May 2022 to 28 August 2022. | Upheld | — | £155 |
| Agency worker regulations | Claim for breach of Regulation 5 of the Agency Workers' Regulations 2010 (difference in pay) for the period 22 August 2022 to 28 August 2022. | Upheld | — | £13 |
| Other | Application for a preparation time order under Rule 76 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Upheld | — | £99 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £267
- 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.