Case 3305624/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Szakacs v Hannants Cleaning Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305624/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Szakacs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 4 June 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Warren decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. No hearing details are recorded in the judgment extract.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's monetary claims. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages, that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment, and that the respondent had not paid her holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered separate sums for each head of claim: £880.99 gross for unlawful deductions from wages, £3,090 for breach of contract notice damages, £4,017 for redundancy pay, and £370.65 for holiday pay. The total award was £8,358.64.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £880.99 gross. | Upheld | — | £881 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,090. | Upheld | — | £3,090 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,017. | Upheld | — | £4,017 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £370.65. | Upheld | — | £371 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,359
- 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.