Case 6001476/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Andres Rodriguez Varela v Astradent Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001476/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Winfield Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Andres Rodriguez Varela
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal declared that the Claimant was employed by the First Respondent, Astradent Limited (in Administration), under a contract of employment between 21 June 2023 and 19 February 2024, and that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims. The hearing took place by Cloud Video Platform on 27 February 2026 before Employment Judge Winfield, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondents not attending.
The Tribunal found the Claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages to be well-founded and they succeeded. The First Respondent was ordered to pay £28,179.89 gross to the Claimant, with the Claimant to account to HMRC for tax and national insurance due on that sum.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment does not separately address any award against the Second Respondent (Secretary of State for Business and Trade).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal declared claims for unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded against the First Respondent (Astradent Limited, in Administration). Award stated as gross; claimant to account to HMRC for tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £28,180 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,180
- 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.