Case 6017276/2024 · Employment Tribunal
FLOYD MENDOZA v Nagawa Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017276/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balroop Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
FLOYD MENDOZA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, employed by the Respondent as a chef and supervisor at £11.40 per hour, brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to non-payment of his September 2024 salary. The Respondent did not attend the hearing despite having been served with notice of the claim and the final hearing date on 12 November 2024, and the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules.
The Tribunal heard unchallenged evidence from the Claimant that he had worked 165.5 hours in September 2024 but was not paid on 1 October 2024, and that repeated requests for payment had not been met. The Judge found the Claimant honest and credible, with no inconsistencies in his evidence, and was satisfied that he had a right to receive his September 2024 salary, that the Respondent failed to pay it, and that the failure amounted to an unlawful deduction in breach of s.13 ERA 1996, with the exceptions in s.13(1)(a) and (b) not applicable.
The complaint was therefore well-founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum deducted of £1,893.32 (165.5 hours x £11.40), with the Claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award calculated as 165.5 hours x £11.40 = £1,893.32 gross for unpaid September 2024 wages. Claimant responsible for any tax/NI. | Upheld | — | £1,893 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,893
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(1)(a) and (b) ERA 1996
- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
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.