Case 6002072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Curchod v DAPV Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002072/2024
- Decision date
- 22 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Curchod
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment at a video hearing on 7 March 2025 before Employment Judge J Bax. The tribunal recorded that the claim for breach of contract in respect of unpaid employer and employee contributions was well founded, but no award was made because the claimant had already received £979.16.
The tribunal also recorded that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £10,256.54 gross, with credit for £1,020.84 already received by the claimant, producing a net balance due of £9,235.70. The parties agreed that the unpaid wages would be paid in two equal instalments in the payroll runs on 28 March 2025 and 25 April 2025.
The judgment further provided that if the first instalment was missed, the whole sum would become immediately due and enforceable. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claim in respect of unpaid employer and employee contributions was well founded, but the claimant had already received £979.16 so no award was made. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded a gross sum of £10,256.54, with credit for £1,020.84 already received by the claimant. The net payable is £9,235.70 by arithmetic, and the parties agreed payment in two equal instalments on 28 March 2025 and 25 April 2025, with acceleration if the first payment is missed. | Upheld | — | £9,236 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,236
- 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.