Case 3301930/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Kovalcuka v Inglemoss Limited t/a Inglemoss Consultants and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301930/2023
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A Kovalcuka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Regional Employment Judge Foxwell determined the claims on the papers and issued judgment for the claimant on each head of claim. The respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay £4,907.76 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £170.00. On the breach of contract claim concerning unpaid expenses, the tribunal ordered damages of £819.37.
The judgment was signed by Regional Employment Judge Foxwell on 5 March 2024 and sent to the parties on 25 March 2024. The reasons section is not present in the supplied text; the document records the operative orders only.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; gross figure as stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,908 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £170 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found a breach of contract in respect of unpaid expenses and ordered damages of £819.37 (judgment text 'In break of contract' appears to be a typographical variant of 'In breach of contract'). | Upheld | — | £819 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,897
- 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.