Case 4102894/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Moldovan v Prowd Enterprise Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102894/2018
- Decision date
- 30 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Moldovan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Shona MacLean in which the tribunal recorded that Prowd Enterprise Ltd had not responded. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £753.70, being £376.85 for two weeks.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £376.85. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,000.36, calculated by reference to 131.8 hours at £7.59 per hour.
The judgment does not identify any separate basic award, compensatory award, or interest. The total sum ordered is the combined amount of the three awards, namely £2,130.91.
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 £753.70, described as £376.85 for two weeks. | Upheld | — | £754 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £376.85 in damages. | Upheld | — | £377 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,000.36, calculated as 131.8 hours at £7.59 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,131
- 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.