Case 2402015/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Csoke v Ixia Flowers Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402015/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Csoke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Phil Allen therefore determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,933.56. It also found a breach of the duty under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give a written statement of employment particulars and, because it was just and equitable to award the higher amount, ordered £1,843.20, described as the equivalent of four weeks' pay.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £783.30. The written notice on interest stated that, if unpaid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, interest would accrue from 25 August 2022 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no separate interest figure was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,934 |
| Other | Breach of the duty under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal said it was just and equitable to award the higher amount, equivalent to four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,843 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £783 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,560
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.