Case 2306757/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Demetris Sofoklis v St Mickalos Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306757/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Demetris Sofoklis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment after the respondent failed to file a response. The claim was lodged on 30 November 2023, notice of claim was sent on 14 February 2024, and no response or extension application was received. The tribunal said it was satisfied it could properly and fairly enter judgment on the papers.
The tribunal found that Mr Demetris Sofoklis had been unfairly dismissed by St Mickalos Company Ltd and that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages properly due to him. The judgment also recorded that the respondent failed to follow the applicable ACAS code and that the claimant suffered a loss of statutory rights. The claim form had also referred to breach of contract, in respect of pay uplifts not given, and unpaid holiday pay, but those heads were not actively pursued in the particulars and were dismissed.
In the annex, the tribunal recorded the claimant's start date as 1 January 1996, effective date of termination as 8 August 2023, and 27 years' continuous service. It used gross weekly pay of £370.00 and net weekly pay of £344.35, with gross annual pay at the effective date of termination of £19,240.00. The basic award was calculated at 30 qualifying weeks x £370.00, giving £11,100.00.
The compensatory award was calculated from immediate loss of 35.3 weeks' net pay (£12,155.56), plus £500 for loss of statutory rights and £2,340.00 for unlawful deductions from wages, less mitigation of £8,018.44, producing £6,977.12 before a 25% uplift of £1,744.28 for failure to follow statutory procedures. The resulting compensatory award was £8,721.40, and the total sum ordered to be paid forthwith was £19,821.40.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 default judgment; the annex calculated a basic award and compensatory award, but the award was not split per claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Declared by the tribunal; the annex included an unlawful deduction component within the overall compensatory calculation, but no separate award was identified for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim form mentioned pay uplifts, but the particulars did not show this as an actively pursued head of claim; the tribunal dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid annual leave was not actively pursued and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,821
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £11,100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,721
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.