Case 2204013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Dorottya Kardos v Wright Family Office Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204013/2023
- Decision date
- 2 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Dorottya Kardos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3. Employment Judge E Burns considered the ET1 and the further information and documents supplied by the claimant and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Wright Family Office Ltd had unlawfully failed to pay three months' salary to Miss Dorottya Kardos. It therefore ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £62,500, less any deductions required for tax and national insurance, which the respondent was required to account for to HMRC.
The hearing listed for 5 June 2023 was cancelled and the parties were told not to attend. The judgment records no separate award breakdown beyond the gross sum ordered for the unpaid salary claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay three months' salary and ordered payment of the gross sum of £62,500, less deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £62,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £62,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.