Case 3219919/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Dennis Duharty (2) Mr Daniel Mucka v Mr Lawrence Brown and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3219919/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yale Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Dennis Duharty (2) Mr Daniel Mucka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 16 June 2022 before Employment Judge Yale Representation, the tribunal recorded that L.A.B Facilities Management Limited was the correct respondent and, by consent, substituted that company in place of Mr Lawrence Brown, who was removed as a party.
The tribunal upheld Mr Duharty’s unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £740. It also upheld Mr Mucka’s unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered payment of £240 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted from his wages.
Mr Mucka’s claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract, so far as they related to expenses, were dismissed. No other remedy components were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that L.A.B Facilities Management Limited had made an unlawful deduction from Mr Duharty’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £740. | Upheld | — | £740 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that L.A.B Facilities Management Limited had made an unlawful deduction from Mr Mucka’s wages and ordered payment of £240. | Upheld | — | £240 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Mucka’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr Mucka’s breach of contract claim in respect of expenses was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £980
- 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.