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
Parties
2 namedMs Elizabeth Lisa Ladjanszky
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment 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 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £7,304 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £1,318 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Upheld | — | £630 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £1,318 |
Legal tests applied
3 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,570
- Basic award
- £756
- Compensatory award
- £6,548
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.