Case 2600465/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A PERFIKOWSKA v Fresh Flow Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600465/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A PERFIKOWSKA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 after Fresh Flow Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Hutchinson therefore made a determination on the papers on 18 June 2024, and the hearing listed for 29 July 2024 was cancelled.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs A Perfikowska's wages, had dismissed her in breach of contract in respect of notice, had dismissed her by reason of redundancy so that a redundancy payment was due, and had failed to pay holiday entitlement. The awards were £6,898.88 gross for unlawful deductions, £2,995.57 for breach of contract, £3,553.85 for redundancy pay, and £5,213.80 for holiday pay.
The total awarded to the claimant was £18,662.10.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and awards £6,898.88 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,899 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £2,995.57 in damages. | Upheld | — | £2,996 |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awards a redundancy payment of £3,553.85. | Upheld | — | £3,554 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awards £5,213.80. | Upheld | — | £5,214 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,662
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.