Case 6046818/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Agnieszka Urbaczka v TOC Property Servicing Limited DEFAULT — 2026
- Case reference
- 6046818/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Agnieszka Urbaczka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Southampton Employment Tribunal on 16 December 2025, outside the prescribed time limits. Employment Judge Self extended time after finding that it had not been reasonably practicable for Agnieszka Urbaczka to present her claims in time and that she had lodged them within a reasonable time thereafter. TOC Property Servicing Limited had failed to present a valid response on time or at all. The judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and issued a default judgment.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £4,333.24 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £6,000 gross in damages. She had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,500. The respondent was ordered to pay £16,833.24 in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award stated gross. | Upheld | — | £4,333 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages stated gross. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,833
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Not reasonably practicable to present claims within the prescribed time limits; presentation within a reasonable time thereafter
- 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.