Case 2303396/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Merchant v AHA Health Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303396/2019
- Decision date
- 20 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge HYDE Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Merchant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that AHA Health Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Ms N Merchant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £62,595.82 gross, described as unpaid salary for the period August 2018 to May 2019, calculated at £1,442.30 per week for 43.4 weeks.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for a 0.83% share in the respondent's equity. It said the claim was not well-founded because there was no evidence of a contractual term entitling the claimant to that equity share.
The sex discrimination complaint did not proceed to determination because it was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on that basis. The claimant also confirmed that she had made no claim for notice pay, and the tribunal noted that there were no remaining complaints to be determined, so no further hearing date was listed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £62,595.82 gross for unpaid salary between August 2018 and May 2019, calculated at £1,442.30 per week for 43.4 weeks. | Upheld | — | £62,596 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for a 0.83% share in the respondent's equity was dismissed as not well-founded because there was no evidence of a contractual term to that effect. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £62,596
- 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.