Case 6001172/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Bojarczuk v Brookwood Selection — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001172/2025
- Decision date
- 21 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Bojarczuk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing of the respondent's case.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £920 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £230 in damages, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, awarding £111.04.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Anstis on 21 January 2026 and sent to the parties on 2 February 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £920 gross. Rule 22 determination after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £920 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £230 awarded. | Upheld | — | £230 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; ordered to pay £111.04 (rounded to integer GBP for schema). | Upheld | — | £111 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,261
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.