Case 3314407/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Medaluk Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314407/2020
- Decision date
- 31 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 30 May 2022, Employment Judge Hyams sitting alone and with no appearance by the respondent ordered Medaluk Limited to pay Mr D Puri gross sums of £738.90 as an outstanding contractual sum on termination of employment and £885.00 as accrued holiday pay. The judgment records both amounts as gross sums before deductions for income tax and national insurance contributions.
The judge also ordered Medaluk Limited to pay Mr G Sestak gross sums of £862.04 as an outstanding contractual sum on termination, £1,032.50 as accrued holiday pay, £1,464.96 as damages for breach of contract for failure to give full notice pay, and £4,349.10 as a redundancy payment under Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Puri: gross sum outstanding on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £739 |
| Holiday pay | Mr Puri: accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Sestak: gross sum outstanding on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £862 |
| Holiday pay | Mr Sestak: accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,033 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Sestak: damages for failure to give full notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,465 |
| Redundancy | Mr Sestak: redundancy payment under Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £4,349 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,333
- 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.