Case 6023673/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Ziems v Emdus Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6023673/2025
- Decision date
- 28 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Ziems
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmdus Limited did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Eeley decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that the claims could properly be determined without a response.
The tribunal found that Emdus Limited had made unauthorised deductions from L Ziems's wages and awarded £1,774.50 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £367.50 in damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £685.76 gross. The total award was £2,827.76. The accompanying notice stated that interest would begin to accrue from 21 July 2026 at 8% per annum if the award was not paid in full within 14 days after 20 July 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,775 |
| Breach of contract | The award was for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £368 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £686 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,828
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the 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.