Case 3312960/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Kolchagova v Siren Services Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312960/2023
- Decision date
- 4 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Kolchagova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Watford by CVP on 9 December 2024 before Employment Judge Murdoch. The claimant appeared in person, the first respondent did not attend, and the second respondent was represented by Mr Soni for the Redundancy Payment Service.
The tribunal decided that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment from either the first respondent or the second respondent. It also found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions in respect of holiday pay against both respondents was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The written judgment records the outcomes only. It states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the specified time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant is not entitled to a redundancy payment from either respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes the complaint as unauthorised deductions in respect of holiday pay against both respondents and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.