Case 3321082/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Stocka v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 3321082/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Stocka
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, and the Employment Judge entered judgment under Rule 21 on the information available. The tribunal found that Boz19 Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Ms Stocka’s wages and ordered payment of £4,508.66.
The tribunal also found that Ms Stocka was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,540.60. It further found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £3,150.00.
The tribunal held that Ms Stocka was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a compensatory award of £16,913.90. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £7,113.68.
The judgment records that Ms Stocka was not entitled to a basic award as well as a statutory redundancy payment. The total amount awarded was £34,226.84.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,509 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,541 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,150 |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £16,914 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £7,114 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,227
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £16,914
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.