Case 3310817/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mazeika v TC-Service Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310817/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mazeika
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Baran sitting alone at Watford by CVP found both claims in Mr A Mazeika's favour. The respondent did not attend or provide representation. The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded because the respondent had made a deduction from the claimant's pay for the period 1 July to 16 September 2024. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £16,666.68 deducted from pay.
The tribunal also held that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £6,666.67 as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the amount would be taxed as Post Employment Notice Pay. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period 1 July to 16 September 2024 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £16,667 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay well-founded and awarded damages calculated using gross pay to reflect likely taxation as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £6,667 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,333
- 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.