Mr R Holp v MMS Mirabella Ltd and A H Canterbury Ltd: 2303681/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2303681/2023
Between
Mr R HolpClaimantMMS Mirabella LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Fredericks-BowyerIn person for claimantDate 25 April 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The hearing proceeded in the absence of the respondent under Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Before taking that decision, the Tribunal was satisfied that:- 1.1. The respondent has not engaged with proceedings and has not complied with any orders; 1.2. The notice of hearing had been sent to the respondent; 1.3. No reasons were given to excuse non-attendance.[2]The respondent breached the claimant’s employment contract by failing to pay him salary, and taking contractual deductions for pension which were not then paid into the pension scheme.[3]The breach of contract caused losses to the claimant in the sum of £190.13. No further award for breach of contract is made because that would be double recovery of the sums awarded below. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2303681/2023[4]The matters constituting breach of contract were also an unlawful deduction from wages and a failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday. Remedy is awarded under Employment Rights Act 1996 in the following amounts:- 4.1. Wages for February, March and April 2023 - £5,506.28 4.2. Holiday - £708.00[5]The claimant is responsible for accounting for any tax due on the sums paid to him under paragraph 4 above.[6]The total amount which the respondent must pay the claimant under this judgment is £6,404.41. Approved by:

REASONS

[1]By a claim form dated 16 July 2023 the claimant brought claims against(1) Mr Stelian Mocanu and(2) Mr Dev Biswal.[2]In each case he agrees that he named the wrong respondent and that he meant to bring claims against the respective companies:(1) MMS Mirabella Limited and(2) A H Canterbury Limited.[3]A response was filed by A H Canterbury Limited and accepted by the Tribunal as a response on behalf of Mr Dev Biswal. The name of the second respondent thereby became A H Canterbury Limited.[4]The claimant has since withdrawn the claim against A H Canterbury Limited.