Case 1601724/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. I.K. Szymala v Stolmet Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601724/2020
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. I.K. Szymala
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan found that Stolmet Ltd had unfairly dismissed Ms I.K. Szymala on 13 May 2020. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but it does not set out any further factual reasoning or compensation figure at this stage.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction, or deductions, from the claimant's wages, and that it had failed to provide itemised pay statements. Those claims also succeeded. No split of remedy was recorded in the judgment, and no monetary award was fixed in this decision.
The judgment states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing, with a time estimate of one hour, on a date to be set and notified in a Notice of Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the respondent dismissed the claimant unfairly on 13 May 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction, or deductions, from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements. | Upheld | — | — |
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.