Case 3300032/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person (assisted by M Dynos- interpreter) For the v DRBR Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300032/2022
- Decision date
- 1 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Reading ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person (assisted by M Dynos- interpreter) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the claim was determined at a hearing in accordance with Rule 21(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. Employment Judge Anderson heard the matter at Reading ET on 24 March 2023, with the claimant appearing in person and assisted by an interpreter.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unpaid wages. It accepted the figures taken from the claimant's payslips and ordered the respondent to pay £3,528, less any deductions for tax or national insurance, within 28 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
The award was made up of £1,800 for unpaid wages and holiday pay for the month commencing 1 July 2021, and £1,728 for unpaid holiday pay for the month commencing 1 August 2021. No separate remedy heads were set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described this as a claim for unpaid wages. The respondent did not present a response, so the matter was determined under Rule 21(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The sum ordered was calculated from the claimant's payslips and included £1,800 for unpaid wages and holiday pay for the month commencing 1 July 2021 and £1,728 for unpaid holiday pay for the month commencing 1 August 2021. | Upheld | — | £3,528 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,528
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21(2) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.