Case 3301036/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs U Dabrowska v A to B Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301036/2021
- Decision date
- 4 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs U Dabrowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 4 January 2023 at Bury St Edmunds by video, Employment Judge C H O’Rourke recorded that the Respondent, A to B Group, had made unlawful deductions from the Claimant’s wages and had failed to pay arrears of holiday pay. The claimant, Mrs U Dabrowska, appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter, and the respondent was represented by its director.
The judgment states that the parties had agreed the sum of £2,501.00 for those claims. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that amount to the claimant. No separate split between the unlawful deduction from wages element and the holiday pay element is given in the judgment.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No further findings or legal tests are set out in the written judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records that this was part of the agreed sum of £2,501.00 with the holiday pay claim, and the award was not split between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found a failure to pay arrears of holiday pay. The judgment records that this was part of the agreed sum of £2,501.00 with the unlawful deduction from wages claim, and the award was not split between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,501
- 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.