Case 3206892/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Vizcaino v Joop Leisure Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206892/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Townley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Vizcaino
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by telephone on 20 May 2022 before Employment Judge Townley. The Respondent did not appear and was not represented. The Tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction of wages and ordered the Respondent to pay £545.00 net. It also upheld the Claimant's claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay and ordered payment of £327.00 net.
The Tribunal further found that the Respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars and ordered payment of £1,307.54 gross. It noted that the gross award in paragraph 3 was likely subject to Income Tax and National Insurance deductions, unlike the net sums in paragraphs 1 and 2, and said that payment of the net sums would discharge the judgment if the appropriate deductions and accounting were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deduction of wages succeeded; tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £545.00. | Upheld | — | £545 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay succeeded; tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £327.00. | Upheld | — | £327 |
| Other | Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £1,307.54 gross for failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,180
- 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.