Case 3309945/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Montatixe Malacatos v Phoenix Facilities Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3309945/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Montatixe Malacatos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge R Lewis recorded three upheld claims against Phoenix Facilities Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £437.82.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £234.21. In addition, it found that the respondent failed to issue terms of employment and ordered payment of £468.42.
The judgment contains only the operative findings and monetary orders. The total sum ordered was £1,140.45, made up of the three separate awards set out in the judgment.
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 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £437.82. | Upheld | — | £438 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £234.21. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to issue terms of employment and ordered payment of £468.42. | Upheld | — | £468 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,140
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.