Case 6006064/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Grzegorzewicz v New Kitchen Parkstone Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006064/2024
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yallop REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Grzegorzewicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a valid response and did not attend the hearing, which was listed to determine liability and remedy. The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 28 May 2024 to 3 July 2024. It accepted the claimant's calculation that 12 shifts at 5.5 hours at £13 per hour produced £858 for delivery driving, plus £169 for refurbishing the kitchen, making £1,027 owed before deducting £466 already paid, leaving £561 gross due.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim for mileage expenses and awarded £270 as damages, using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable. The separate breach of contract claim for notice pay was also well-founded: the claimant was entitled to one week's notice, and the tribunal used an average weekly income of £143, calculated as 2 x 5.5 x £13, to award £143.
The holiday pay complaint was found well-founded under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 0.67 weeks' leave over a six-week period, had taken no leave, and was therefore entitled to £95.81 for unpaid holiday pay. It also recorded that the respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 during the same period, although no separate monetary award is stated for that point.
Finally, the tribunal found that when proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. Applying section 38 Employment Act 2002, it held it just and equitable to award an amount equal to four weeks' gross pay, which it calculated at £572. The total award recorded by the judgment is £1,641.81.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 28 May 2024 to 3 July 2024. The tribunal calculated gross wages owed at £1,027 and deducted £466 already paid, leaving £561. | Upheld | — | £561 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for mileage expenses. The award was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable. | Upheld | — | £270 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's notice and used average weekly income of £143. | Upheld | — | £143 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay found due under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period 28 May 2024 to 3 July 2024. No separate monetary award is stated for this point. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal held the respondent was in breach when proceedings began and awarded four weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,642
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- just and equitable
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.