Case 6019794/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Brankov v Paragon Staff Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019794/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bann Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Brankov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by CVP on 7 April 2025 before Employment Judge J Bann. The respondent did not attend. It upheld Mr Brankov's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 26 August to 2 September 2024. The tribunal found he was entitled to £118.80 per day gross for five shifts from Monday 26 August to Friday 30 August 2024, totalling £594.
For 2 September 2024, the tribunal found that the claimant worked a 14.5-hour shift and that £118.80 was below the National Minimum Wage then in force, which it identified as £11.44. It recorded an entitlement of £165.88 for that day. The judgment then ordered the respondent to pay £697.50 gross and to deal with tax and national insurance, but the stated component figures do not add up to that total, so the precise arithmetic breakdown is not clear from the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 26 August to 2 September 2024. It recorded entitlement to £118.80 per day gross for five shifts from 26 to 30 August 2024, and a further entitlement for work on 2 September 2024 when the hourly rate was below the National Minimum Wage. Paragraph 4 states that the respondent shall pay £697.50 gross, but the component figures in paragraphs 2 and 3 do not arithmetically match that total, so the exact breakdown is unclear from the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £698 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £698
- 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.