Case 6007573/2025 · Employment Tribunal
E Krajinic v K. Ryan Consulting Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007573/2025
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Krajinic
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 5 March 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Alliott decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
On the substance of the claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of €87,750, or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of the gross sum of €9,661.12, or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment. No separate breakdown of any broader award was recorded beyond those two sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of €87,750 Euros or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment. | Upheld | — | £87,750 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of €9,661.12 Euros or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment. | Upheld | — | £9,661 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £97,411
- 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.