Case 2207486/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Iryna Akovantseva-Pelayo v Good Start IH Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207486/2021
- Decision date
- 2 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Iryna Akovantseva-Pelayo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not file an ET3 or Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin decided the case could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis of the claim form.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent unfairly dismissed Iryna Akovantseva-Pelayo under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded a basic award of £6,231, a compensatory award of £3,149.41 and £450 for loss of statutory rights.
The Tribunal also found that the Respondent was in breach of contract for failing to pay notice pay of £4,515.00. It further found an unlawful failure to pay wages of £1,354.40 and an unlawful failure to pay holiday pay of £1,420.65. The judgment ordered payment of £17,120.56, stating that account should be taken to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a basic award of £6,231, a compensatory award of £3,149.41 and loss of statutory rights of £450. | Upheld | — | £9,830 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found the Respondent failed to pay notice pay of £4,515.00. | Upheld | — | £4,515 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the Respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages of £1,354.40. | Upheld | — | £1,354 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the Respondent unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay of £1,420.65. | Upheld | — | £1,421 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,121
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,231
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,149
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.