Case 6022812/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J M Zorba v Mr Jordan Coombe t/a Doggy Day Care Cornwall — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022812/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J M Zorba
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 21 December 2024. The Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the claim of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £520. The claim for accrued but untaken holiday was also well founded, with a further gross sum of £565.50 awarded.
Credit was given for £200 already received by the Claimant. The total gross amount owed was £1,085, from which £200 was deducted, leaving the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £885.50.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum of £520 awarded, subject to credit of £200 already received (applied to the combined total). | Upheld | — | £520 |
| Holiday pay | Gross sum of £565.50 awarded for accrued but untaken holiday, subject to credit of £200 already received (applied to the combined total). Rounded from £565.50. | Upheld | — | £566 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £886
- 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.