Mr M Patel v Volga Investment Ltd: 2600435/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2600435/2021
Mr M PatelClaimantVolga Investment Ltd Heard: by Cloud Video Platform (Midlands East) On : 9 August 2021Respondent
Employment Judge FaulknerIn person for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 13 August 2021

JUDGMENT

[1]In accordance with rule 34 to Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Volga Investment Ltd is substituted as the sole Respondent to this Claim.[2]The Claimant’s complaint that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages between November 2020 and January 2021 is well-founded. The Respondent is therefore ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £6,896.50 (gross). It is agreed that the Respondent may deduct from the resulting net sum the amount of £3,000 already paid to the Claimant.[3]The Claimant’s complaint that the Respondent was in breach of contract in failing to reimburse him for expenses incurred by him in carrying out the duties of his employment is well-founded. The Respondent is therefore ordered to pay to the Claimant the further sum of £1,385.21.[4]The Claimant’s complaint of failure to pay compensation related to entitlement to annual leave on termination of his employment is wellfounded. The Respondent is therefore ordered to pay to the Claimant the further sum of £1,307.73 (gross) by way of compensation.[5]The Claimant’s complaint that the Respondent was in breach of contract in relation to payment for holiday in respect of the holiday year ending 10 November 2020 is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the further sum of £3,096.15 (gross), the Tribunal having insufficient information to enable the appropriate net sum to be calculated. Page 1 of 2 Case No: 2600435/2021[6]The Claimant’s remaining complaints are not well-founded and are dismissed.[7]In accordance with rule 66 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the above amounts are payable by the Respondent within 14 days of the date of this Judgment. Note: This was a remote hearing. The parties did not object to the case being heard remotely. The form of remote hearing was V - video. It was not practicable to hold a face-to-face hearing because of the COVID-19 pandemic.