Case 2403384/2024 · Employment Tribunal
M A Alam v Evolutis Ltd t/a Eclevar Medtech — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403384/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M A Alam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response within the time allowed, and the tribunal therefore issued a Rule 21 judgment on the basis that the claimant’s claims were well founded. Employment Judge Holmes recorded the decision on 3 December 2024, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 5 December 2024.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £4,000.00 gross for an unauthorised deduction from wages. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £400.00 gross.
The judgment states that both sums are gross and that the claimant must account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due. A separate notice on interest was issued, stating the relevant decision day as 5 December 2024, the calculation day as 6 December 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum, but no interest sum was quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well founded under Rule 21 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,000.00. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday entitlement claim well founded under Rule 21 and ordered payment of £400.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,400
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
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.