Case 3302421/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hristo Ivanov v Mach Recruitment Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302421/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hristo Ivanov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made a consent judgment after hearing the claimant in person and Ms Barrett for the respondent at a hybrid hearing in Watford on 21 September 2022.
By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,000 by Friday 23 September 2022. The claimant withdrew all claims against the respondent arising out of his contract of employment, and the claims were dismissed upon that withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a consent order for payment and states that the claimant withdrew all claims, which were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment text does not separately identify the unlawful deduction claim; this classification follows the listing category. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The listing category includes Written Statements, which is not a separate locked taxonomy entry. The judgment itself does not give a separate description of this claim and records all claims as withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.