Case 3310902/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Kazandzhieva v Titan Healthcare Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3310902/2019
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Kazandzhieva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to enter a response to the claim. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaints that she was dismissed in breach of contract, suffered unlawful deductions from wages, and was not paid for accrued holiday pay all succeeded.
The judgment did not determine the age discrimination complaint at that stage. Instead, Employment Judge Ord directed the claimant to set out in writing the acts or omissions said to constitute age discrimination and the facts relied on, and listed a further hearing for 28 November 2019 to consider whether she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the ground of age, what remedy should follow if so, and what sums were due on the claims that had already succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.