Case 3307812/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Shchybun v Guavapay Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307812/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Shchybun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to serve a response, so judgment was entered under rule 21. On the evidence before the tribunal, it found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in respect of 10 working days and awarded £2,212.08 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's untaken holiday entitlement for 1.1 days and awarded £221.21 gross. It recorded that the sums at paragraphs 2 and 3 were gross sums, with payment of the net amount to the claimant to meet the judgment debt if the respondent accounted for tax and national insurance to HMRC.
Finally, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,230.76 net, payable in full to the claimant. The judgment therefore disposed of the claims for unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay, and breach of contract in the claimant's favour.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of 10 working days and ordered payment of £2,212.08 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,212 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's untaken holiday entitlement in respect of 1.1 days and ordered payment of £221.21 gross. | Upheld | — | £221 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,230.76 net. | Upheld | — | £3,231 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,664
- 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.