Case 2600175/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A Ghadar v Dermal Diagnostics Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600175/2025
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr A Ghadar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr A Ghadar presented the claim on 17 December 2024 in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Adkinson recorded that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment was issued on 7 April 2025 and sent to the parties on 24 April 2025.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £6,791.25 gross, inclusive of pension contributions. It also upheld the claim for breach of contract in respect of expenses and ordered payment of £795.36 as a debt.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,100. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £4,430 gross. All future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 the claimant’s wages, including pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £6,791 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of expenses and ordered payment of a debt. | Upheld | — | £795 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £4,430 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,117
- 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.