Case 3322406/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fernandes Torres v D&A Commercial Cleaning Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322406/2021
- Decision date
- 18 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fernandes Torres
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds via CVP on 9 December 2022 before Employment Judge Fredericks. The respondent did not attend, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 after noting that notice had been sent to the address provided, the respondent had not attended the previous hearing, and no witness statements or explanation for non-attendance had been provided.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages in September 2021 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £520. It also found that the respondent had not paid the claimant for 20 days of accrued but untaken holiday, assessed at an average rate of £120 per day, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,400.
The total gross amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £2,920. The judgment was given orally at the hearing and notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in September 2021 and ordered the gross sum of £520. | Upheld | — | £520 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that 20 days' accrued but untaken holiday had not been paid, assessed at an average rate of £120 per day, and ordered the gross sum of £2,400. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,920
- 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.