Case 1303466/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms Symko (director) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303466/2019
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Centre City Tower, Birmingham on 20 and 22 April 2022 before Employment Judge Perry sitting alone. The claimant, Mr M Alexandru, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Symko, a director of the respondent company.
In the final merits judgment, the tribunal said that the claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out separate reasons for each complaint, and it does not record any monetary award or remedy.
On the face of the source material, the adjudicated claims were the listed breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages complaints, and both were dismissed. No further findings, legal reasoning, or remedy calculations are included in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment text does not separate findings by claim; the tribunal stated that the claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not separate findings by claim; the tribunal stated that the claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.