Case 3321881/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Koufis v The Knight Pub Company Ltd t/a Novi — 2026
- Case reference
- 3321881/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Koufis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Cambridge, before Employment Judge Foxwell, entered judgment for Mr A Koufis under Rule 21 against The Knight Pub Company Ltd t/a Novi. The written record states that judgment was awarded to the claimant in the sums of £538.46 for unlawful deduction of wages, £1,076.92 as damages in respect of unpaid notice pay, and £328.81 for holiday pay, producing a total award of £1,615.38.
The judgment is a short Rule 21 decision and does not set out findings of disputed fact or a detailed liability analysis. The written record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
On the face of the record, the claimant succeeded on all three monetary claims identified in the judgment: unlawful deduction of wages, unpaid notice pay treated as damages, and holiday pay. No separate breakdown is given beyond the three sums awarded, and the written decision does not address any additional remedy heads.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £538 |
| Breach of contract | Award described as damages in respect of notice pay unpaid. | Upheld | — | £1,077 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £329 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,615
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.