Case 2602161/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Kowalik v Barn House Bakery Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602161/2023
- Decision date
- 16 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Kowalik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Leicester on 2 July 2024 before Employment Judge McTigue sitting alone. The claimant did not attend, and the tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The respondent was represented by Mr M Szukala and a Polish interpreter, Ms M Kunz, was present.
The written judgment records only the outcome: the entirety of the claimant's claim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. No separate factual findings, liability analysis, or remedy assessment are set out in the written record. The notes state that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not separate the factual findings by head of claim; it records only that the claimant's entire claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. The case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claim categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not separate the factual findings by head of claim; it records only that the claimant's entire claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. The case listing identifies working time as one of the claim categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.