Case 2415438/2021 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mrs H Barnus-Kalinska 2. Mr M Kalinski v Jeremy Eagle, trading as A C Cleaning Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415438/2021
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mrs H Barnus-Kalinska 2. Mr M Kalinski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs H Barnus-Kalinska's wages and ordered the respondent to pay her £1,724.01 gross. It also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr M Kalinski's wages and ordered the respondent to pay him £1,631.74 gross.
The judgment did not allocate the awards into separate compensation components. It was accompanied by the standard interest notice, which stated that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sums were not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, 19 December 2022, with interest calculated from 20 December 2022 at the stipulated rate of 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 that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the first claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,724.01. | Upheld | — | £1,724 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the second claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,631.74. | Upheld | — | £1,632 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,356
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
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.