Case 3206243/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K G Esteves v ASB-MCM UK Construction Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 3206243/2021
Decision date: 11 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Jones Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K G Esteves

Respondent

ASB-MCM UK Construction Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr K G Esteves against ASB-MCM UK Construction Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,040, being 204 hours between 4 June 2021 and 2 July 2021 at £10 per hour.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £280, calculated as 28 hours at £10 per hour. In addition, the tribunal declared that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment.

For that failure, the tribunal ordered compensation under section 124A Employment Rights Act 1996, assessed at four weeks' wages. Using the figure of £510 per week, the award was £2,040. The total sum ordered was £4,360, and the hearing listed for 25 April 2022 was cancelled.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for 204 hours between 4 June 2021 and 2 July 2021 at £10 per hour.	Upheld	—	£2,040
Holiday pay	The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, calculated as 28 hours at £10 per hour.	Upheld	—	£280
Other	The tribunal declared that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment and awarded compensation under section 124A Employment Rights Act 1996, calculated as four weeks' wages at £510 per week.	Upheld	—	£2,040

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £4,360; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.