Case 2602006/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. MS Mohideen v Spring Healthcare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602006/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. MS Mohideen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two consolidated claims, one issued on 19 September 2023 and a second issued in the North West Employment Tribunal and transferred to Midlands East. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Heap made a Rule 21 determination on the papers and dealt only with the sums owed and ordered to be paid.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £175.00 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £382.14 in damages, and that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £1,199.92.
The complaint about unpaid redundancy pay was no longer advanced and was treated as withdrawn and dismissed accordingly. The total ordered to be paid was £1,757.06.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award stated as £175.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £175 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; award described as damages. | Upheld | — | £382 |
| Holiday pay | Found to be unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Redundancy | No complaint was then advanced in respect of unpaid redundancy pay; treated as withdrawn and dismissed accordingly. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,757
- 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.