Case 3325455/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Wiencek, Eurolexpartners LLP For the v P Khan T/a Khan Maintenance — 2020
- Case reference
- 3325455/2019
- Decision date
- 15 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Wiencek, Eurolexpartners LLP For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not submit a response, attend the remedy hearing, or make written representations. The claimant, represented at the hearing and assisted by an interpreter, confirmed that he was only seeking unpaid wages and accrued untaken holiday pay.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's calculations, which had been provided to the respondent and were not disputed. It found that the claimant was owed £1,900 in unpaid wages and £1,617.04 for 14.3 days' accrued untaken holiday, making unlawful deductions of £3,517.04.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been issued with a written statement of particulars of employment. Pursuant to section 38(3) of the Employment Act 2002, it considered it just and equitable to increase the award by the higher amount of four weeks' pay, £2,261.52.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was owed £1,900 in unpaid wages. The judgment's declaration of unlawful deductions covers the combined unpaid wages and holiday pay award of £3,517.04. | Upheld | — | £1,900 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted the claimant's accrued untaken holiday calculation of 14.3 days at a gross daily rate of £113.08, totalling £1,617.04. | Upheld | — | £1,617 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,779
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38(3) of the Employment Act 2002
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.