Case 3202151/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Adam Kovalchuk v Magdal Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3202151/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Carpenter Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adam Kovalchuk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London East Hearing Centre on 9 January 2026 before Employment Judge Carpenter, determined the claimant's claim of unlawful deduction from wages against Magdal Ltd. The claim succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay unpaid wages of £2,499.93, which included a 25% uplift for non-compliance with the ACAS Code. The Tribunal also ordered a payment of £915.20 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars, calculated at two weeks' wages. The total sum payable is £3,415.13.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard 14-day rule. The written record does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award includes a 25% uplift for non-compliance with the ACAS Code. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Other | Failure to provide written statement of particulars; awarded at two weeks' wages. Not a discrete claim type in the §4.4 taxonomy, so classified as 'other'. | Upheld | — | £915 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,415
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.