Case 6010419/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Wojciech Szyba v Nomico Electrical Company Limited Heard at London South by video — 2023
- Case reference
- 6010419/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Wojciech Szyba
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was a worker within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. His complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £510, reflecting £840 of price work on the flats he worked on, less £330 for the cost of corrective work. This sum is subject to tax and National Insurance deductions.
The tribunal also found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of the duty under s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide the claimant with a written statement of initial particulars of employment, and the award was increased by £500, with no deductions to be made to that sum.
The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant is £1,010, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions from the £510 wages element. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Corrigan sitting alone following a video hearing at London South.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award of £510 reflects £840 price work minus £330 cost of corrective work; subject to tax and NI deductions. | Upheld | — | £510 |
| Other | Breach of s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (failure to provide written statement of initial particulars of employment); award increased by £500 with no deductions. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,010
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.