Case 2300297/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Petra Ladicova v Restaurant Trading Management Ltd (in liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300297/2020
- Decision date
- 21 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Petra Ladicova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. The respondent did not present a response within the stipulated time, and Employment Judge Martin determined the claim on that basis on 21 August 2020.
The tribunal found that the claimant, Ms Petra Ladicova, had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent, Restaurant Trading Management Limited (in liquidation), to pay damages of £460.00 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £931.50. In addition, it found that accrued holiday pay due on termination of employment had not been paid and ordered £1,932.00.
The judgment does not record any reduction, offset, or separate remedy analysis beyond the three sums awarded. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £3,323.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £460.00. | Upheld | — | £460 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £931.50. | Upheld | — | £932 |
| Holiday pay | Default judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found accrued holiday pay due on termination had not been paid and ordered £1,932.00. | Upheld | — | £1,932 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,324
- 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.