Case 1405545/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Vinogradova v Sussex Cleaning Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405545/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Vinogradova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs T Vinogradova brought claims against Sussex Cleaning Services Ltd for unfair dismissal, non-payment of redundancy pay, and unpaid annual leave. The hearing took place at Bristol by CVP on 30 April 2021 before Employment Judge Midgley. The respondent did not attend, and the claimant appeared in person with assistance from her daughter.
The tribunal found that all three claims were well founded and succeeded. The written judgment does not set out detailed reasons, but it records that the unfair dismissal claim, the redundancy pay claim, and the unpaid annual leave claim were each upheld.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,890 gross in redundancy pay and £1,170 gross for unpaid annual leave. The written record does not specify any separate monetary award for the unfair dismissal finding, and it records no other remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded, but it does not record a separate monetary award for that claim in the written decision. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Awarded as redundancy pay in the sum of £1,890 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,890 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as unpaid annual leave in the sum of £1,170 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,060
- 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.