Case 3314566/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Dadak v 1st Class PVCU Ltd T/a London Glazing Group — 2019
- Case reference
- 3314566/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Dadak
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent, 1st Class PVCU Limited t/a London Glazing Group, did not present a response to the claim. The tribunal therefore entered judgment in favour of Mr N Dadak under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was owed unpaid wages. It awarded £2,896.04 in compensation for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the Respondent to pay that sum.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant was owed expenses. It awarded £260.24 in compensation for breach of contract and ordered the Respondent to pay that sum. The hearing listed for 24 March 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent did not present a response; judgment was entered under Rule 21. The tribunal awarded unpaid wages of £2,896.04. | Upheld | — | £2,896 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Claimant was owed expenses and awarded £260.24 in compensation for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £260 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,156
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,156
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.