Case 6009472/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Agata Mamcarz v Synergy Consulting Engineers Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6009472/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Agata Mamcarz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 within the deadline and did not request an extension of time. Employment Judge E Burns therefore determined the claim on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, having considered the ET1 and the documents provided by the claimant.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant sick pay, salary and a sum in lieu of annual leave. On that basis, the claim succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £3,480 gross. The judgment also directed the respondent to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found the respondent failed to pay sick pay and salary. The award was not apportioned between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment also found the respondent failed to pay a sum in lieu of annual leave. The award was not apportioned between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,480
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.