Case 2203707/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Eurorient Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203707/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge JL Wade therefore determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the papers and without a hearing, after considering the ET1. The listed hearing for 3 to 4 March 2020 was vacated and the parties were told not to attend.
The tribunal found that Eurorient Limited had unfairly dismissed Ms P Chrisostomou and had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and wages. It ordered payment of £11,340 described as 'Basic award/redundancy pay', £4,589.28 for notice pay, and £382.44 net for wages, making a total award of £16,311.72.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment on the papers after the respondent filed no ET3; the tribunal held that Ms P Chrisostomou had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment described this award as 'Basic award/redundancy pay' of £11,340. | Upheld | — | £11,340 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered notice pay of £4,589.28. The judgment did not separately label this claim, so it is treated here as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £4,589 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and ordered £382.44 net. | Upheld | — | £382 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,312
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £11,340
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.