Case 4105450/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Kristyna Hozakova v Vimo Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105450/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Kristyna Hozakova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing held via CVP on 8 February 2021, Employment Judge R McPherson gave oral reasons and upheld Ms Kristyna Hozakova's claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal ordered Vimo Ltd and Mehmet Imanli to pay £575.52 gross, with £9.59 interest to the date of hearing. The judgment records that tax and national insurance on that sum were for the claimant to account for to HMRC.
The tribunal also upheld a separate claim in respect of unnotified deductions. It found that no itemised pay statement had been provided and ordered the respondents to pay a further £575.72, describing that figure as a sum not exceeding the aggregate of the unnotified deductions under s.12(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. A further claim concerning non-provision of a P45 did not succeed and was dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider that issue under the PAYE regulations cited in the judgment. The tribunal added that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as a gross sum; the tribunal also awarded £9.59 interest. The judgment states tax and national insurance were the claimant's responsibility on this gross amount. | Upheld | — | £576 |
| Other | Claim for unnotified deductions succeeded because no itemised pay statement had been provided; the tribunal awarded a further sum under s.12(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £576 |
| Other | Claim for non-provision of P45 was dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it under the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 and the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) (Amendment) Regulations 2016. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,161
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.12(4) ERA 1996
- Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003
- Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
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.