Case 2207568/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ludmina Pticnikova v Anzhelika Khan — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207568/2022
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ludmina Pticnikova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge E Burns sat alone in chamber at London Central on 14 July 2023. After reading correspondence from the parties and noting that they had agreed terms of settlement, the tribunal made a consent order requiring the respondent to pay the claimant within 14 days £13,724.50 for unpaid salary, £4,702.95 for notice pay, £313.44 for holiday pay, and £3,264 as a tax-free redundancy payment, with deductions for tax and national insurance where specified.
The judgment is a settlement order only and contains no findings on liability or merits. It states that the order brought the claim to an end. No legal tests or reasons beyond the agreed terms were recorded in the text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | By consent, the settlement order covered unpaid salary (£13,724.50) and notice pay (£4,702.95), subject to required deductions for tax and national insurance. | Settled | — | £18,427 |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the settlement order included holiday pay, subject to required deductions for tax and national insurance. | Settled | — | £313 |
| Redundancy | By consent, the settlement order included a tax-free redundancy payment. | Settled | — | £3,264 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,005
- across all upheld claims
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.