Case 6008976/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Wszolkowski v Muller UK and Ireland LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008976/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Wszolkowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to carried over holiday pay for the year ending 2023 was well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,076.90 gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to bonus payments for the year ending 2023 and/or unpaid expenses, finding that those complaints were not well-founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are included in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The well-founded complaint was unauthorised deduction from wages relating to carried over holiday pay for the year ending 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,077 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to bonus payments for the year ending 2023 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to unpaid expenses was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,077
- 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.