Case 4104217/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Janowski v Bernd Gantert (BWG Consulting) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4104217/2017
- Decision date
- 23 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Jane Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Janowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued because no response had been presented to the claim. On the available material, Employment Judge F Jane Garvie determined the claim without a hearing and made findings in the claimant's favour on all matters addressed in the judgment.
The tribunal found that Bernd Gantert (BWG Consulting) had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr D Janowski's wages and ordered payment of £6,832.93, described as the net amount claimed. It also found that the claimant had not been paid his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,263.12, again described as the net amount claimed.
Separately, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,500. The judgment does not break down any further remedy components beyond those three sums. The combined amount ordered is £10,596.05.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the net amount claimed. | Upheld | — | £6,833 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the net amount claimed. | Upheld | — | £1,263 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,596
- 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.