Case 2400940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Georgiadis v Essential Consulting Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400940/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Georgiadis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 1 December 2020, Employment Judge Horne heard Mr D Georgiadis's claim against Essential Consulting Group Limited by remote video platform. The judgment recorded that the claimant's redundancy payment claim was dismissed following his withdrawal, that the respondent did not make an unlawful deduction from bonus because the bonus was not properly payable, and that no unlawful deduction was made from accrued holiday pay because the amount properly payable on termination matched what had been paid.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent's contract claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the respondent. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not provide further factual findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent did not make any unlawful deduction from the claimant's bonus because the bonus was not properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the respondent did not make any unlawful deduction from the claimant's accrued holiday pay because the amount of holiday pay properly payable on termination was equal to the amount actually paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contract claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.