Case 3305353/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Sandor Szanyi v Marc Bakery Ltd (In Administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305353/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Sandor Szanyi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued this written judgment on reconsideration under rule 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after giving an oral judgment on 24 March 2022. The respondents did not attend or appear to be represented. The claims against the first respondent, Marc Bakery Ltd (In Administration), were dismissed.
The tribunal found that the second respondent, Galeta Bakery Ltd, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay holiday pay accrued before dismissal. It ordered payment of £136.01, which was the gross deduction of £346.84 less £210.83 already paid to the claimant by the Insolvency Service. It also found an unauthorised deduction from wages for six days worked before dismissal and ordered payment of £623.08 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. On reconsideration, paragraph 4 of the written judgment fixed damages at £1,450.58, being one month's net pay of £1,824.65 less £374.07 already paid by the Insolvency Service. The total monetary award against the second respondent was therefore £2,209.67.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction for unpaid holiday pay accrued before dismissal. The claims against the first respondent were dismissed; the second respondent was ordered to pay £136.01 net, after deducting £210.83 already paid by the Insolvency Service from a gross deduction of £346.84. | Upheld | — | £136 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction for six days worked before dismissal. The claims against the first respondent were dismissed; the second respondent was ordered to pay £623.08 gross. | Upheld | — | £623 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay. The claims against the first respondent were dismissed; the second respondent was ordered to pay £1,450.58, being one month's net pay of £1,824.65 less £374.07 already paid by the Insolvency Service. | Upheld | — | £1,451 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,210
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 21
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 73
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.