Case 2302793/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Osypanko v Latino Fresh Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302793/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Osypanko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Region Employment Tribunals on 11 March 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing previously listed for 4 October 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £865.38 gross, calculated on the basis that she was 34 years old at dismissal and had worked for the respondent for 2 years. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £951.92 gross.
In total the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,817.30. The claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of the amount received.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 determination. Claimant aged 34 with 2 years' service awarded statutory redundancy payment of £865.38 gross. | Upheld | — | £865 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; ordered to pay £951.92 gross. | Upheld | — | £952 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,817
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.