Case 2204878/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Ryfka-Muszalska v Bespoke Leisure Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204878/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Ryfka-Muszalska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at London Central on 2 December 2021 before Employment Judge Nicklin, with the claimant appearing in person and no attendance for the respondent. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was remote because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was well founded. It also found that no loss of earnings/compensatory award was proved, so no compensatory recovery was made under the unfair dismissal head.
Separately, the tribunal awarded the claimant a redundancy payment of £492.60, calculated as weekly pay of £123.15 multiplied by 4. It also awarded statutory notice pay of £492.60 on the same calculation, subject to any applicable deductions for tax and/or National Insurance in respect of the notice pay.
The judgment therefore ordered the respondent to pay £985.20 in total, less any applicable deductions for tax and/or National Insurance in respect of the notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded, but recorded that no loss of earnings/compensatory award was proved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded at £492.60, calculated as weekly pay of £123.15 x 4. | Upheld | — | £493 |
| Breach of contract | Statutory notice pay awarded at £492.60, calculated as weekly pay of £123.15 x 4, subject to any applicable tax/NIC deductions. | Upheld | — | £493 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £985
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.