Case 2408744/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Jaiswal v Dr S Ahmed’s Surgery, Newton Heath Medical Centre — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408744/2023
- Decision date
- 29 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Jaiswal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a consent order. It records that the claimant agreed to withdraw her claim and the respondent agreed to withdraw the counterclaim on the basis that the respondent would pay the claimant £760.62 by 1 August 2024.
The order states that, if the Tribunal did not hear from either party by 8 August 2024, the claim and counterclaim would stand dismissed without further enquiry or order. It also records that nothing in the judgment prevents the claimant from referring matters about pension contributions, tax and national insurance to the Pensions Ombudsman or the NHS independent pensions dispute resolution procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing category identifies unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment is a consent order recording withdrawal of the claim by agreement for payment of £760.62 and does not set out the factual basis of the claim. | Settled | — | £761 |
| Other | The judgment records that the respondent withdrew a counterclaim by consent, but it does not identify the counterclaim type or attach a separate remedy amount to it. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £761
- 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.