Case 6012772/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Yourgov v Proud Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012772/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Yourgov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Yourgov, brought a claim for arrears of pay and outstanding holiday pay arising from an engagement with Proud Group Limited between 13 June 2024 and 26 July 2024. The respondent was in voluntary liquidation and had attempted to file a response through the liquidator, but the ET3 was rejected because it did not include an address. The tribunal therefore determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and the claim succeeded.
On quantum, the tribunal discussed the claim with the claimant and noted a dispute about the amount owed. The claimant said he was engaged on a zero-hours contract and relied on a payslip showing that, up to 10 July 2024, he had worked 61 hours at £13 per hour and was owed £849.31. The claimant confirmed that this was the amount due and also confirmed that he did not work beyond 10 July 2024; 26 July 2024 was only the last date he was available to work.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered Proud Group Limited to pay £849.31 gross within 21 days of the judgment date. No separate breakdown between arrears of pay and holiday pay was set out in the judgment, and no other remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time because the ET3 did not provide an address, so the claim was determined in the claimant's favour under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The tribunal accepted the claimant's quantification of arrears and holiday pay at £849.31 gross based on a payslip showing 61 hours at £13 per hour. | Upheld | — | £849 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £849
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.