Case 2600571/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U E Udofia v Mere Green Healthcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600571/2024
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr U E Udofia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 3 April 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Ahmed determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,650.00 gross, together with £311.00 in expenses, producing a total award of £1,961.00. The hearing previously listed for 16 August 2024 was cancelled in light of the determination.
The judgment is a short Rule 21 default determination and contains no extended reasoning, no findings on credibility, and no named legal tests beyond the reference to Rule 21 itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. The judgment records unauthorised deductions from wages of £1,650.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,650 |
| Other | The judgment orders payment of £311.00 described as 'expenses'. The judgment does not specify the legal basis (e.g. breach of contract vs. another head), so classified as 'other' with reduced confidence. The gov.uk listing mentions breach of contract, but the judgment text does not name that cause of action expressly. | Upheld | — | £311 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,961
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.