Case 2204200/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Kozlova v Link Consultancy Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204200/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Kozlova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claim had been received, and Employment Judge Norris entered judgment in favour of Miss J Kozlova under Rule 21. The respondent did not appear and was not represented. The judgment records an award for unlawful deduction from wages, described as arrears of pay, and for notice pay.
The tribunal awarded a gross sum of £5,369.86. Applying Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik, the judgment states that the award is gross and may be satisfied by payment of the net amount due, which the claimant said was £4,143.37, together with any tax and national insurance that falls to be deducted at source and paid to HMRC.
The claimant did not pursue a separate tribunal claim for 'other payments', identified in the judgment as repayment of a loan made to the respondent's director.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay formed part of the award, together with notice pay; the judgment does not split the sum between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay formed part of the award, together with arrears of pay; the judgment does not split the sum between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,370
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 (Schedule 1 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013)
- Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik
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.