Case 1402409/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs U Choinska v Dimitra Mousoulou — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402409/2022
- Decision date
- 4 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs U Choinska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs U Choinska issued the claim on 29 July 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £178.20 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £387.38.
The judgment further records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,726.20. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £598.75.
The total award was £3,890.53. The judgment states that the claim succeeds and that the hearing listed for 2 June 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £178 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £387 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,726 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £599 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,891
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.