Case 2602213/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Sajdak v Accident Specialists Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602213/2019
- Decision date
- 25 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Sajdak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, the Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge Clark found that Accident Specialists Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss A Sajdak’s wages, and ordered payment of the net sum of £142.93. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £780.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement, and ordered payment of £480. The judgment records that a determination on the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim remained pending, and the hearing listed for 25 November 2019 was cancelled. The recorded monetary awards total £1,402.93.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £142.93. | Upheld | — | £143 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £780. | Upheld | — | £780 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £480. | Upheld | — | £480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,403
- across all upheld claims
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.