Case 3200534/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Christou v Applemed Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200534/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dias-Patel Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Christou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 14 September 2022 at East London Hearing Centre by CVP, before Employment Judge Dias-Patel, Miss C Christou appeared in person and Applemed Limited did not attend. The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal found the claim for unpaid wages well founded and ordered Applemed Limited to pay £21,881.16. The order comprised gross monthly earnings for 1 December 2021 to 30 April 2022 of £12,547.95, holiday pay for 18 days in the 2021 leave year of £2,084.90, holiday pay for 7 days in the period 1 January 2022 to 31 April 2022 of £810.80, bonus payments due in October 2021 and January 2022 of £3,011.51, and a statutory redundancy payment of £3,426.00.
The tribunal noted that it was not in dispute that the respondent was required to pay pension contributions from September 2021 to the end of the employment contract. It also recorded that the figures in the award were calculated on a gross basis and could be subject to tax and national insurance deductions as appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid wages and orders a single combined gross payment of £21,881.16. The award is not split between the underlying items, which the tribunal listed as gross monthly earnings, holiday pay, bonus payments, and a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,881
- 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.