Case 3305645/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Vasilliki Kaitsoti v Gravitilab Aerospace Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305645/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Vasilliki Kaitsoti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,916.67, and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £807.69. Both sums are subject to tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,916.67, also subject to tax and National Insurance.
The total sum the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant is £6,641.03 (subject to tax and National Insurance). The judgment is a short-form judgment that does not set out detailed reasoning or apply named legal tests.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal awarded £2,916.67 (subject to tax and National Insurance) for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,917 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal awarded £807.69 (subject to tax and National Insurance) for unpaid holiday entitlement. Listed under Working Time Regulations on gov.uk. | Upheld | — | £808 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice pay; damages of £2,916.67 (subject to tax and National Insurance). | Upheld | — | £2,917 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,641
- 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.