Case 1601685/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E M Bialyj v Phoenix Training Solutions Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) Heard by: CVP link — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601685/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E M Bialyj
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant's claims against Phoenix Training Solutions Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, notice pay and failure to provide written particulars under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 were well founded and succeeded. The case was heard by CVP on 2 June 2021 before Employment Judge A Frazer, and the respondent did not appear.
The tribunal awarded the claimant a basic award of £3,150 for unfair dismissal, £3,333 for notice pay, £12,000 for unpaid wages, and £3,076 for failure to issue a statement of particulars. The total award recorded in the judgment was £21,559.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Award recorded as basic award. | Upheld | — | £3,150 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £12,000 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,333 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996; recorded as 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £3,076 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,559
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,150
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.