Case 2500480/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Andrej v Inville Management Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500480/2020
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Andrej
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Andrej was employed by Inville Management Ltd from 3 March 2016 until 25 January 2020, when she was dismissed without notice. The proceedings were initially presented against Mr Paul Chowdhury, but were amended and then served on the respondent at its registered office. No response was returned by the respondent.
The tribunal therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge Sweeney said there was sufficient information in the claim form to issue judgment against the respondent on liability, and so the tribunal entered judgment that the claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), and unlawful deduction of wages were well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal did not determine remedy at this stage. It recorded that it was not in a position to deal with remedy and made directions for further information to be provided by the claimant, with a remedies hearing to be listed in due course.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal (notice pay). | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.