Case 6003035/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sandra Kaszluk v Mr Maz Daisley — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003035/2025
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sandra Kaszluk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands (West) Employment Tribunals on 19 April 2025 and sent to the respondent on 16 May 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response by the 13 June 2025 deadline or at all. Employment Judge Camp determined under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that the claim could properly be decided on the basis of the claim form.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages totalling £2,045.60 and owed her £896.12 in compensation for accrued but untaken annual leave, producing a total sum of £2,941.72 which the respondent was ordered to pay.
In relation to the claimant's further requests for compensation for missing payslips and a missing P45, and for interest, the tribunal stated that it appeared she was not entitled to those things, and gave her 14 days from the date the judgment was sent to write in identifying the legislation she relied on if she disagreed or sought any further sums.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages totalling £2045.60. Rule 22 determination based on the claim form following the respondent's failure to present a valid response. | Upheld | — | £2,046 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal awarded £896.12 as compensation for accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £896 |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed on gov.uk under Unfair Dismissal but the judgment text does not address or adjudicate an unfair dismissal claim. Outcome unclear from the judgment provided; confidence reduced accordingly. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Listed on gov.uk under Breach of Contract but the judgment text does not separately adjudicate a breach of contract claim. Outcome unclear from the judgment provided. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Listed on gov.uk under Working Time Regulations and Written Pay Statement. The holiday pay element is captured separately; no other working time finding is set out in the judgment text. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claims for compensation for missing payslips and a missing P45 and for interest: the tribunal stated it appears the claimant is not entitled to these, subject to the claimant writing in within 14 days. On the face of the judgment these elements were not awarded. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,942
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.