Case 3300471/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v B T Dziedzic and Loopleafmarket Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300471/2023
- Decision date
- 14 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge G D Davison heard the case at Watford (by CVP) on 21 June 2024. The claimant attended in person; neither respondent attended. The claim against the first respondent, Blazej Tomasz Dziedzic, for unpaid wages and holiday pay was found to be well founded and was allowed, with a gross sum of £983.41 payable to the claimant (67.5 hours at £13 = £877.50, plus holiday pay of £105.91 calculated at 12.07%).
The claim against the second respondent, Loopleafmarket Ltd, was dismissed. The Tribunal had previously written to the claimant on 21 November 2023 noting that the company had ceased to exist with effect from 27 June 2023, and stating that the claim against it would be dismissed unless the claimant applied to Companies House by 15 December 2023 to have the company restored to the register. The claimant confirmed that no such application had been made, and the claim against the second respondent was accordingly dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the first respondent (Blazej Tomasz Dziedzic) for unpaid wages found well founded; calculated as 67.5 hours x £13. | Upheld | — | £878 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay against the first respondent at 12.07% of £877.50 = £105.91. | Upheld | — | £106 |
| Other | Claim against the second respondent (Loopleafmarket Ltd) dismissed because the company had been dissolved on 27 June 2023 and the claimant did not apply to Companies House to have it reinstated. The judgment does not specify the claim type against the second respondent separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £983
- 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.