Case 1600832/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Novakova v Seiont Manor Limited Date: 7 May 2020 — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600832/2020
- Decision date
- 22 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Davies Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Novakova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present an ET3 response form. The Employment Judge therefore acted under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim in the absence of a response from the respondent.
The tribunal found that the respondent had deducted one month’s pay from the claimant’s wages without authorisation, contrary to s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,219.68 in respect of the unlawful deduction from wages.
The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. No separate holiday pay award is set out in the operative part of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that, in the absence of an ET3 response form, the respondent had deducted one month’s pay from the claimant’s wages without authorisation, contrary to s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was awarded £1,219.68. | Upheld | — | £1,220 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,220
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 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.