Case 1600029/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Magdalena Lackowska v Got Beef Canton Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1600029/2018
- Decision date
- 1 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Magdalena Lackowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present an ET3 response form. Employment Judge P Cadney recorded that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to determine the matter and, acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, upheld the claimant's claims for unpaid wages and one week's notice.
The tribunal awarded £1,059.37 for unpaid wages and £225 for one week's notice, making a total award of £1,284.37. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages. No separate award for interest, injury to feelings, or other compensation is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Expressly described in the judgment as unpaid wages. The respondent did not file an ET3 response form, and the tribunal upheld the claim under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £1,059 |
| Breach of contract | Expressly described in the judgment as 1 week's notice. The respondent did not file an ET3 response form, and the tribunal upheld the claim under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £225 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,284
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.