Case 2306123/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Duric Ristovski v AGO – UK1 MANAGEMENT 1 Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306123/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beckett London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Duric Ristovski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Beckett sitting alone at London South (via CVP) on 30 October 2025 under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Neither the Claimant nor the Respondent attended. The Respondent is in voluntary liquidation.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the Claimant's wages and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant gross wages of £11,739.26. The tribunal recorded that the sum is gross and that recoupment does not apply to this award.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard 14-day window. No other claims or remedies are addressed in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment issued on the papers; neither party attended. The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of gross wages of £11,739.26. The gov.uk listing categorised this case as 'Unfair Dismissal', but the judgment itself adjudicates only an unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Upheld | — | £11,739 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,739
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.