Case 1806043/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Pawlowski v Mr O Chady Mayfair Residential Care Home Ltd PUBLIC HEARING Heard: BY CVP On: 21 August 2023 — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806043/2022
- Decision date
- 21 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Pawlowski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final hearing by CVP after an earlier hearing in May could not determine the claims. By the start of the hearing, the second respondent had agreed the claimant's calculations of holiday pay and notice pay, and the redundancy payment was largely agreed save for the length of service. The tribunal heard oral evidence on the date of termination and found that the claimant's employment ended on 26 August 2022.
The tribunal found that the second respondent was the employer at the time of redundancy. On that basis, the claimant's complaints against the first respondent were dismissed. The tribunal also found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, which the second respondent was ordered to pay.
The claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was upheld. The second respondent was ordered to pay gross sums of £494.01 for holiday pay on termination and £2,969.20 for notice pay. The total sum payable to the claimant was £8,968.36.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment text renders the redundancy sum as '£5,505. 15.'; the total award is consistent with £5,505.15. | Upheld | — | £5,505 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprised holiday pay of £494.01 and notice pay of £2,969.20. | Upheld | — | £3,463 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,968
- 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.