Case 1801925/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Milosz v Forza Foods Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1801925/2024
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr M Taj, Mr D Crowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Milosz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment in Ms A Milosz v Forza Foods Limited, heard at Leeds on 26 August 2025 before Employment Judge Maidment with lay members Mr M Taj and Mr D Crowe. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a gross sum of £11,486.85 in respect of unpaid company sick pay.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £14,000.00 as compensation for injury to feelings, together with £2,053.33 interest thereon, described as further compensation for the respondent's acts of discrimination. The judgment does not set out the underlying liability reasoning and records only the remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum ordered in respect of unpaid company sick pay. | Upheld | — | £11,487 |
| Disability discrimination | Further compensation for the respondent's acts of discrimination, consisting of £14,000.00 for injury to feelings plus £2,053.33 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £16,053 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,540
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.