Case 3308791/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Marko Samuel v ECO Cleaning Services and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308791/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Marko Samuel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMarko Samuel brought claims for breach of contract and holiday pay against Eco Cleaning Services and Solus Facilities Limited. The tribunal found that Eco Cleaning Services was only a trading name and that Solus Facilities Limited was the claimant's employer. The respondents did not attend the hearing or contest the claimant's documentary evidence and oral evidence.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant worked as a mobile driver and also carried out cleaning duties, was paid a monthly salary of £880 gross, and was underpaid on a number of occasions during furlough and after furlough ended. It found that he was entitled to claim expenses for use of his own vehicle and fuel, but only accepted £500 for 2021. The separate claim for £500 for February and March 2022 was rejected because there was insufficient corroborating evidence. The tribunal calculated the unpaid wages shortfall at £5,306.40 and awarded £5,806.40 in total for breach of contract.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not been permitted to take annual leave. It applied the Working Time Regulations 1998, including regulations 13A and 14, and referred to Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and King v Sash Window Workshop on carry-over where a worker has been prevented from taking leave. It upheld the holiday pay claim and awarded £880 subject to statutory deductions, calculated by reference to a pro rata statutory entitlement for the final year of employment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded £5,806.40 in total, made up of £5,306.40 for unpaid wages and £500 for 2021 expenses. It rejected the separate £500 claim for February and March 2022 expenses for lack of corroborating evidence. The judgment contains an apparent typo at para 18 referring to 6 October 2022 as the start date, but the surrounding chronology and pay evidence indicate October 2020. | Upheld | — | £5,806 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded subject to statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,686
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Limitation Act 1980 s. 5
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs. 13A and 14
- King v Sash Window Workshop
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
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.