Case 2217652/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Elizabeth Lisa Ladjanszky v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2217652/2023
Decision date: 13 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
Venue: by CVP from the Central London Tribunal

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Elizabeth Lisa Ladjanszky

Respondent

Royal Mail Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Woodhead at the Central London Tribunal (by CVP) on 5 September 2024 made a remedy judgment by agreement, the respondent Royal Mail PLC having conceded that the complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, wrongful dismissal (notice pay) and holiday pay under regulations 14(2)/16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were well founded.

Royal Mail also conceded an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, justifying a 25% uplift under section 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to the compensatory, unlawful deductions, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay awards.

The parties agreed the Respondent would pay a basic award of £755.58, a compensatory award of £6,548.36 (statutory cap), £1,317.50 unlawful deductions, £1,318.44 holiday pay, and £629.65 notice pay; the Claimant is responsible for tax and NI on the gross sums.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Conceded by Royal Mail. Basic award £755.58 + compensatory award £6,548.36 (statutory cap of 52 weeks at £125.93). 25% ACAS uplift applied to compensatory components.	Upheld	—	£7,304
Unlawful deduction from wages	Gross sum for period 9 June 2023 to 2 August 2023 (includes 25% ACAS uplift).	Upheld	—	£1,318
Wrongful dismissal	Notice pay (4 weeks at £125.93 with 25% ACAS uplift).	Upheld	—	£630
Holiday pay	Accrued but untaken holiday (gross; includes 25% ACAS uplift) under regulations 14(2)/16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.	Upheld	—	£1,318

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £10,570; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £756; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £6,548; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.