Case 2400575/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Lobanov E Hul v Moderix Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400575/2025
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Lobanov E Hul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims of M Lobanov and E Hul against Moderix Ltd were presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 17 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claims under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
For M Lobanov, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages (£2,747.25 gross), that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice (damages of £5,741.16), and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to statutory redundancy pay of £5,071.84 (8 weeks x £633.98). The respondent must pay £13,560.25 in total.
For E Hul, the tribunal made parallel findings: unauthorised deductions from wages (£2,400.00 gross), breach of contract in respect of notice (damages of £2,334.93), and a redundancy payment of £2,492.33 (4.5 weeks x £553.85). The respondent must pay £7,227.26 in total.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | M Lobanov: unauthorised deductions from wages, £2,747.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,747 |
| Breach of contract | M Lobanov: dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £5,741.16. | Upheld | — | £5,741 |
| Redundancy | M Lobanov: statutory redundancy pay of £5,071.84 (8 weeks x £633.98 per week). | Upheld | — | £5,072 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | E Hul: unauthorised deductions from wages, £2,400.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Breach of contract | E Hul: dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £2,334.93. | Upheld | — | £2,335 |
| Redundancy | E Hul: statutory redundancy pay of £2,492.33 (4.5 weeks x £553.85 per week). | Upheld | — | £2,492 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,788
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.