Case 3304170/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Diniz v Alphapro Removals Ltd. — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304170/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Diniz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Quill. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,621.34. The tribunal also found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £1,610.
A further claim for £5,000, said to reflect the respondent's conduct, was refused. The judgment was sent to the parties on 9 April 2024 and entered in the register. The text is brief and does not set out detailed reasoning, legal tests, or panel composition beyond the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,621.34. | Upheld | — | £3,621 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1,610 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,610 |
| Other | Additional claim for £5,000 to reflect the respondent's conduct was refused. The judgment does not identify a specific statutory cause of action for this head, so classified as 'other'. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,231
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.