Case 3305910/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sebastian Tomiczek v Darma London Limited; and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305910/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Sebastian Tomiczek
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Sebastian Tomiczek brought a claim that unlawful deductions had been made from his wages in the sum of £1,976.00. At the final hearing before Employment Judge Ord on 29 March 2021, he could not give the dates on which he worked, the dates of any cash payments he said he had received, or the exact sums paid to him.
The claimant said he had worked with Jurek, whom he described as the main painter, and later said he had instead been working with a man called Sushek, a spray painter. The third respondent said that neither man was employed by any of the respondents, and that Jurek was an independent contractor and a joiner, not a painter. The claimant also referred to emails he said he had sent to the respondents, but these were not before the tribunal.
The tribunal held that the burden was on the claimant to establish that he was contractually entitled to wages that had not been paid. On the evidence before it, the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any monies were due from any of the three respondents. The complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant alleged unpaid wages totalling £1,976.00. The tribunal found he could not give the dates he worked, the dates of any cash payments he said he received, or the exact sums received, and was not satisfied that any monies were due from any of the three respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.