Case 6003526/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Maria Puzitskaya v Linkilaw Solicitors Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003526/2025
- Decision date
- 24 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Duff REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Maria Puzitskaya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Maria Puzitskaya, was allowed to amend her ET1 to clarify the heads of claim. The respondent's application to strike out the claims for alleged non-compliance with a case management order was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had complied with the order and that the respondent had not met its disclosure obligations.
The respondent accepted that the sums claimed for holiday pay, unpaid wages before 17 October 2024, gardening leave pay and commission had been incurred and remained unpaid. The tribunal held that the holiday pay complaint was well-founded and that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 January 2024 to 17 October 2024. It awarded £4,576.74 gross for holiday pay and £34,232.96 gross for wages, made up of back pay, gardening leave pay and the agreed commission figures.
The tribunal also held that the notice pay complaint was well-founded as a breach of contract. It found the contractual amount owed was £30,000, but the Employment Tribunal's breach of contract jurisdiction was capped at £25,000 under s.10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, so that was the amount awarded. The claimant's claim for sums under the Data Protection Officer contract was withdrawn, and the tribunal dismissed the claim for interest. The total awarded was £63,809.70, payable by 9 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the respondent failed to pay holiday accrued but untaken when the claimant's employment ended. The award was £4,576.74 gross, and the claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £4,577 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages between 1 January 2024 and 17 October 2024. The award of £34,232.96 gross comprised unpaid wages before 17 October 2024 (£3,478.26), gardening leave wages (£5,652.17), and agreed commission sums of £2,400 and £22,702.53. | Upheld | — | £34,233 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice pay claim well-founded. The contract amount was £30,000, but the award was capped at £25,000 under s.10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and it was calculated on gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid amounts under the Data Protection Officer contract, pleaded as unauthorised deductions from wages or alternatively breach of contract, was dismissed as withdrawn after the claimant noted the £25,000 cap on breach of contract claims. The tribunal recorded that this did not affect any civil court claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £63,810
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.