Case 2301537/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Valuckaite First v Austins of London Ltd Second Respondent: E & A of London Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301537/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Valuckaite First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent of both parties, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims against the first respondent. The judgment does not identify the underlying first-respondent claim types, only that they were dismissed.
Against the second respondent, the tribunal recorded that the claimant was due a statutory redundancy payment of £3,750.00, payment of £2,166.66 for a deduction from wages, £400.00 in lieu of holiday pay, and £4,500.00 for notice pay. The judgment was issued on 2 March 2021 and records no separate reasoning beyond the parties' consent and the resulting monetary orders, which total £10,816.66.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | By consent, the claimant's claims against the first respondent were dismissed. The judgment does not specify the underlying first-respondent claim type(s). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment ordered against the second respondent. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deduction from wages ordered against the second respondent. | Upheld | — | £2,167 |
| Holiday pay | Pay in lieu of holiday pay ordered against the second respondent. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay ordered against the second respondent. | Upheld | — | £4,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,817
- 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.