Case 6014311/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Arciszewski v Bguk Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014311/2025
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Arciszewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Barker, sitting alone at Liverpool Employment Tribunal on 10 September 2025, heard the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. The claimant was self-represented and the respondent did not attend. The Tribunal first recorded that, between the claim being issued and judgment, the respondent had changed its name from Buddha Group Limited to BGUK LTD, and was satisfied that BGUK LTD is the correct respondent.
The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. It identified three specific deductions: 75 hours at £13.50 per hour in June 2024 (£1,012.50); 71.14 hours at £15.90 per hour in November 2024 (£1,131.13); and 8.5 hours at £15.90 per hour in November 2024, representing one day's holiday (£135.15).
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,278.78, with the claimant being responsible for any tax or National Insurance. The judgment was given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. Three deductions identified: 75 hours at £13.50/hour in June 2024 (£1,012.50); 71.14 hours at £15.90/hour in November 2024 (£1,131.13); and 8.5 hours at £15.90/hour in November 2024 representing one day's holiday (£135.15). Total gross sum ordered: £2,278.78. Respondent did not attend. | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,279
- 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.