Case 1306345/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ewelina Janik-Mirek v Titan Recruitment Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1306345/2020
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ewelina Janik-Mirek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham via CVP on 16 January 2023, before Employment Judge Bennett, the tribunal heard the claimant, Ewelina Janik-Mirek, represented by Mr Lukasz Mirek, and the respondent, Titan Recruitment Ltd, appearing in person. The tribunal held that the claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and accrued but unpaid holiday allowance were well founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £362.06, plus £42.38 interest, in respect of 7.5 days' holiday allowance calculated at 5.88 hours per day and £8.21 per hour. The total sum payable to the claimant was therefore £404.44 gross. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was well founded, but it does not split the monetary award between this claim and the holiday pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday allowance was well founded. The award was not apportioned between the two successful claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £404
- across all upheld claims
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.