Case 6000933/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Ziajski v Morgan King Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000933/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Ziajski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 10 March 2024 and decided by Employment Judge Miller on 14 October 2024 under rule 21, after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment amended the respondent's name to Morgan King Group and proceeded on the basis of the material before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £126 gross. It also dismissed the claimant's separate claim for £30 in travel-to-work costs, stating that this was not an expense arising from the unauthorised deduction and that the claimant had not asserted any contractual right to be paid those expenses.
The tribunal further refused the claimant's claim for the costs of attending the hearing because he did not attend the hearing. No separate compensatory, injury to feelings, or interest award was recorded in the judgment, and the total monetary award recorded was £126 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £126 |
| Other | Claim for £30 travel-to-work costs dismissed because the tribunal found it was not an expense arising from the unauthorised deduction and no contractual right to payment for those expenses was asserted. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for the costs of attending the hearing was refused because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £126
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.