Case 2405505/2025 · Employment Tribunal
S Chelakova v Nikita Campbell — 2026
- Case reference
- 2405505/2025
- Decision date
- 8 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Chelakova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningS Chelakova presented the claim against Nikita Campbell in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 18 October 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Ainscough decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £3,148.65 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £412.50 in damages. The claim for unpaid holiday entitlement succeeded, with an award of £1,812.50.
The respondent also failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award was specified for that finding. For the failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, the tribunal awarded an additional four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, calculated as four times £362.50, totalling £1,450.
The total award was £6,823.65. The accompanying interest notice specifies a rate of 8% per year and a calculation day of 29 July 2026. It states that no interest is payable if the award is paid in full within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties on 28 July 2026. No interest amount was quantified.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award for unauthorised deductions from wages is gross. | Upheld | — | £3,149 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £413 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,813 |
| Other | Failure to provide written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award was specified. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal awarded an additional four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, calculated at £362.50 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,450 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,824
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.