Case 3200734/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Varadyova v Excellent Zephyr Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200734/2024
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Varadyova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHaving considered correspondence from the liquidator and the Redundancy Payments Office, together with the claimant’s evidence and the respondent’s letter dated 15 January 2024, Employment Judge Howden-Evans found that the claimant’s complaint about notice pay was well-founded. The case was heard by CV on 14 April 2025; the respondent did not attend.
The tribunal held that the respondent was liable in breach of contract in relation to notice pay and awarded the claimant £3,755.32 as damages. The judgment states that this figure was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The award was derived from the claimant’s gross monthly pay of £4,166.67 less £411.35 already paid as notice pay by the Redundancy Payments Office. The judgment also provided that interest would accrue at 8% per annum on any unpaid sum 14 days after the date of judgment, and stated that this would be £0.82 per day if the whole amount remained unpaid.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice pay complaint well-founded and awarded damages for breach of contract. The award was calculated using gross pay, less the notice pay already paid by the Redundancy Payments Office. | Upheld | — | £3,755 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,755
- 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.