Case 2400514/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Frydrych v Lano NW Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400514/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Frydrych
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 17 May 2022, before Judge Brian Doyle, the claimant appeared in person with assistance and the respondent did not attend or present a response. The tribunal amended the title of proceedings so that the correct respondent was Lano NW Ltd rather than Mohamad Ahmad Piewant, being satisfied that both potential respondents had notice of the claim.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unpaid sick pay and unpaid holiday pay, brought contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, were well-founded. It ordered Lano NW Ltd to pay £372.48 for unpaid sick pay and £16.03 for unpaid holiday pay, after taking into account sums already paid by the respondent and noting that the sums had been calculated in accordance with the claimant's statutory entitlement to the national minimum wage.
The written record also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that unpaid sums would attract interest if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, with the stipulated rate set at 8% and the calculation day given as 24 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unpaid sick pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal ordered £372.48 after taking into account sums already paid. | Upheld | — | £372 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of unpaid holiday pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal ordered £16.03 after taking into account sums already paid. | Upheld | — | £16 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £389
- 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.