Case 3302515/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Kalnroze v Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302515/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Kalnroze
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded. It found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 November 2022 to 31 January 2023, and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £17,499.99.
The tribunal also held that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to pension contributions succeeded, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £293.52. The respondent's contract claim failed and was dismissed; the judgment records that the claimant agreed to return property and that the parties would make arrangements for this.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded for the period 1 November 2022 to 31 January 2023. | Upheld | — | £17,500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract complaint in relation to pension contributions succeeded. | Upheld | — | £294 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contract claim failed and was dismissed. The judgment states that the claimant agreed to return property and that the parties would make arrangements for this. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,794
- 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.