Case 2200409/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Horvath v Soulkitchens Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200409/2021
- Decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Horvath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade therefore determined the remaining claims on the ET1 under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, without a hearing. The judgment records that the correct name of the respondent is Soulkitchens Group Ltd.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay Ms L Horvath salary of £4,885.12, bonus of £250, pension contributions of £215.00 and notice pay of £426.26. It ordered the respondent to pay her £5,776.38 in total and to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due. The judgment does not apportion that sum between the individual heads of claim.
The tribunal also said it did not have jurisdiction to award £1,000 for costs incurred as evidence, and noted that a breakdown of the exact sums attributable to the losses compliant with section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act would be required. No other remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay salary of £4,885.12, bonus of £250 and pension contributions of £215.00. The judgment does not split the award between causes of action. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal also found notice pay of £426.26 was unpaid. The judgment does not split the award between claims, and orders payment in a single total sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,776
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.