Case 6024546/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Alexandre Euripedes Valdo Vaz v OE Products Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6024546/2025
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alexandre Euripedes Valdo Vaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and did not submit a response. The tribunal decided that the claimant's claim in respect of unpaid pension payments succeeded.
The tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's contractual claim for holiday pay for 2023 because the claimant remained employed. It also stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider claims for unpaid tax and/or student loan repayments that the respondent was required to pay to HMRC through PAYE.
No remedy amount was awarded in the written judgment. The claimant was directed to send a schedule of loss by 19 January 2026 setting out the pension payments claimed and any interest sought due to late payment of wages, supported by documentary evidence.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim in respect of unpaid pension payments succeeds. No remedy amount was determined in the written judgment; the claimant was directed to provide a schedule of loss. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal stated that, because the claimant remained employed, it did not have jurisdiction to consider his contractual claim for holiday pay for 2023. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider claims for unpaid tax and/or student loan repayments required to be paid to HMRC through PAYE. | Other | — | — |
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.