Case 2400009/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Georgieva v In Recycling Service Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2400009/2019
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Georgieva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ross sat alone at Manchester on 12 September 2019. The claimant, Miss E Georgieva, appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter. The respondent did not attend. Written reasons were not provided because the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,221.48, described in the judgment as 13 days x 12 hours per day x NMW rate £7.83 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's breach of contract claim, based on the respondent's failure to provide free accommodation, was well founded. It ordered payment of £100 for that claim.
The judgment states that the total sum payable within 14 days was £1,321.48. The accompanying notice explains that tribunal awards may carry interest if unpaid after 14 days, but the judgment itself does not quantify any interest award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim was well founded and awarded £1,221.48, calculated as 13 days x 12 hours per day x NMW rate £7.83 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,221 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claim for failing to provide free accommodation was well founded and awarded £100. | Upheld | — | £100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,321
- 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.