Case 2205929/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Meehan v European Medical Aesthetics Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205929/2020
- Decision date
- 26 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Grewal Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Meehan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Meehan brought complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, wrongful dismissal, failure to pay holiday pay, and a complaint under section 66 of the Equality Act 2010 against European Medical Aesthetics Ltd (In Liquidation). The respondent did not appear at the hearing. The tribunal recorded that all sums awarded were gross and that tax liability for them rested with the claimant.
The tribunal found the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint well-founded and awarded £6,699.50. It also found wrongful dismissal well-founded and awarded £576. The holiday pay complaint was also well-founded, with an award of £1,382.40, described in the judgment as 12 days or 2.4 weeks.
The section 66 Equality Act 2010 complaint was found not well-founded. Separately from the substantive complaints, the tribunal made an award of £2,152 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, stated to be four weeks' pay capped at £538 per week. The total sum awarded was £10,809.90 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,700 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £576 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,382 |
| Equal pay | Complaint under section 66 of the Equality Act 2010; tribunal found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,810
- 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.