Case 1405606/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Sinkevica, lay representative For the v Mr Lomas, Employment Consultant — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405606/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Sinkevica, lay representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol by video on 13 May 2021 before Employment Judge A Richardson. The tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims of unlawful deduction from wages and unpaid holiday. It held that both claims were not well founded and dismissed them.
The written judgment record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision, and the record does not set out any separate remedy findings for either claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as not well founded. The written record does not give separate reasons because the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to this as an 'unpaid holiday' claim; it was found not well founded and dismissed. The written record does not give separate reasons because the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.