Case 3300573/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N J Vokes (1) Mrs S Kritikos (2) v Essential Services (Surrey) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300573/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N J Vokes (1) Mrs S Kritikos (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It consolidated claims 3300573/2024, 3300574/2024, 3300581/2024 and 3300582/2024 and made determinations on the papers.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mrs N J Vokes. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,025.44 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,025 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mrs S Kritikos. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £541.96 gross. | Upheld | — | £542 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs N J Vokes. Dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1,958.40 were awarded, calculated at weekly pay of £163.20 for 12 weeks' statutory minimum notice. | Upheld | — | £1,958 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs S Kritikos. Dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £468.90 were awarded, calculated at weekly pay of £46.89 for 10 weeks' statutory minimum notice. | Upheld | — | £469 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs N J Vokes only. Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £282.88. | Upheld | — | £283 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs N J Vokes. The tribunal found her to have been unfairly dismissed, but compensation was left to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,278
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.