Case 2409574/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Petrauskaite v KA Empire Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409574/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Petrauskaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Phil Allen therefore made a determination on the papers for Miss S Petrauskaite against KA Empire Limited.
The tribunal upheld two monetary claims. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £803.27 net for September 2022. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £188.60 for 2.3 days' holiday.
The written record also contained an interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that interest would be payable if the sums were not paid in full within 14 days after the decision was sent to the parties, with the relevant decision day identified as 16 February 2023 and the stipulated rate of interest stated as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £803.27 for September 2022. | Upheld | — | £803 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £188.60 for 2.3 days' holiday. | Upheld | — | £189 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £992
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.