Case 6007151/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Chikwendu v Tranzfar Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007151/2025
- Decision date
- 19 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Chikwendu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shotter heard the case in private at Manchester on 19 January 2026. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend and had filed no ET3. The judge dismissed the claimant's application to amend to bring a constructive unfair dismissal claim out of time, finding it had been reasonably practicable to present that claim within the statutory limitation period.
On the remaining complaints the tribunal entered default judgment in the claimant's favour. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 October 2024 to 28 February 2025 (the effective date of termination) was well-founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £9,932.20 net, plus interest of £239.24 for non-payment of wages. The claimant's separate interest claim for monies borrowed from friends and family was dismissed.
The holiday pay complaint under regulations 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was also well-founded, with the respondent ordered to pay £610 net (36.5 hours at £16.71 net per hour). The respondent was held responsible for any tax and National Insurance on the awards.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claimant's application to amend and bring a constructive unfair dismissal claim out of time was dismissed; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the statutory limitation period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment entered (no ET3 filed). Unauthorised deductions from wages between 1 October 2024 and 28 February 2025 (effective date of termination). Awarded £9,932.20 net; respondent responsible for tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £9,932 |
| Holiday pay | Default judgment. Respondent failed to pay in accordance with regulations 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Awarded £610 net (36.5 hours x £16.71 net per hour). | Upheld | — | £610 |
| Working time regulations | The holiday pay award was made under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (regs 14(2) and/or 16(1)); recorded separately to reflect the gov.uk listing category. Monetary award captured under the holiday_pay claim to avoid double counting. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Listed on gov.uk under Breach of Contract but the judgment text does not record a separate breach of contract determination beyond the wages and holiday pay findings. No distinct outcome stated in the judgment. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,781
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Working Time Regulations 1998, regulations 14(2) and 16(1)
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.