Case 2212116/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Kaloudi Tsikni v Mr M Kontis and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2212116/2023
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs D Olulode, Mr S Hearn
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E Kaloudi Tsikni
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting as a panel of Employment Judge Khan with Mrs D Olulode and Mr S Hearn, found unanimously that the first respondent (Mr M Kontis) sexually harassed the claimant in respect of six of the seven pleaded allegations (SH1, SH3, SH4, SH5, SH6 and SH7) under s.26 Equality Act 2010. Allegation SH2 was not upheld. The amendment to add new allegations of harassment was permitted, and time was extended on a just and equitable basis, the balance of prejudice weighing in favour of the claimant.
Against the second respondent (Alphakon Limited), the tribunal recorded that it had conceded unauthorised deductions from wages totalling £1,988.45 for periods in February and May 2023. The second respondent was also found to have breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay expenses (£385.39 conceded plus £114.14 in car rental for 9-12 May 2023) and by failing to auto-enrol the claimant into the NEST pension scheme at the statutory minimum 3% employer contribution rate; the respondents' reliance on s.4 Pensions Act 2008 was rejected because no deferral notice had been given.
The claimant's notice pay claim and the remainder of her breach of contract and expenses claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had breached her contract by giving only one month's notice and by promoting her own brand (FYC) during her employment contrary to a reasonable management instruction, so the second respondent's summary dismissal on 12 May 2023 was not itself a breach. The respondents were ordered to pay £2,487.98, with compensation for sexual harassment and the pension breach to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Sexual harassment by the first respondent upheld in respect of allegations SH1, SH3, SH4, SH5, SH6 and SH7 under s.26 Equality Act 2010. Allegation SH2 not upheld. Compensation to be decided at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Listed by gov.uk as Sex Discrimination; the tribunal adjudicated this as sex-related/sexual harassment under s.26 EqA 2010 against the first respondent. Recorded here to mirror the gov.uk listing taxonomy; substantive findings are captured under the harassment claim. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second respondent conceded unauthorised deductions of £1,988.45 for 1 day on 28 February 2023 and 10 days between 1-12 May 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,988 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract upheld in two respects: (a) failure to pay expenses of £499.53 (comprising £385.39 conceded plus £114.14 in car rental charges for the period 9-12 May 2023); and (b) failure to make NEST pension contributions at 3% of gross qualifying earnings, the amount to be decided at a remedy hearing. Claims for £15 CC payment, car rental charges from 13 May to 7 July 2023, and the £1,703.49 'miscellaneous' claim (bonus, healthcare, car allowance) were dismissed. Notice pay claim also dismissed: tribunal found the claimant in breach for promoting her own brand contrary to a reasonable management instruction, so summary dismissal was not a breach by the second respondent. remedy_amount reflects only the expenses element; pension element to be quantified at remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,488
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Pemberton v Inwood [2018] IRLR 542
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 4 Pensions Act 2008
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.