Case 3304002/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Stefan Mihajlovic v Andrew Stubbs, and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 3304002/2025
- Decision date
- 5 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Stefan Mihajlovic
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningStefan Mihajlovic presented his claim against Andrew Stubbs and INTELLIGIANTS LTD. at the Watford Employment Tribunal on 11 July 2025. The judgment records that the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Regional Employment Judge Foxwell decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mihajlovic’s wages, dismissed him in breach of contract in respect of notice, and failed to pay his holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of €4,200 gross for wages, €436.15 in notice damages and €1,131 for holiday entitlement, totalling €5,767.15. The liability and remedy hearing listed for 19 August 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award stated in euros (€), gross. The judgment refers to 'the Respondent' without specifying how liability is allocated between the two named respondents. | Upheld | — | £4,200 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages stated in euros (€). The judgment does not allocate liability between the two named respondents. | Upheld | — | £436 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement. Award stated in euros (€). The judgment does not allocate liability between the two named respondents. | Upheld | — | £1,131 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,767
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.