Case 3306310/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Grzegorz Motucki First v Mr Raphael Brazil Second Respondent: TAProp t/a RB Maintenance Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306310/2024
- Decision date
- 9 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Grzegorz Motucki First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim by Mr Grzegorz Motucki against Mr Raphael Brazil and TAProp t/a RB Maintenance Ltd was listed for a hybrid hearing at Watford on 9 September 2025 before Employment Judge Young. The claimant did not appear. Mr Raphael Brazil appeared for the first and second respondents as director of the second respondent.
The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-attendance. The judgment records only that dismissal and does not contain findings on the substance of the underlying employment claims.
No remedy was assessed or awarded, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing but will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note on written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-attendance; the judgment did not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-attendance; the judgment did not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.