Case 1806296/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Kasznia v Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) AT A HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806296/2019
- Decision date
- 15 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Kasznia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not appear and did not attend the telephone hearing at Leeds on 15 May 2020. The claimant appeared in person, assisted by Mr Richard Smallwood and through an interpreter, Ms Ions.
The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay complaint on withdrawal. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable time afterwards.
The claim for a protective award succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018. The judgment recorded that regulations 6, 7 and 8 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 applied, so payment of any award would be postponed pending any recoupment notice and only the balance would then be payable directly to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The complaint in respect of holiday pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claim was for a protective award. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 regulations 6, 7 and 8
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.