Case 3302317/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Gill v VR Therapies CIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302317/2025
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 1 May 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. On that basis, the tribunal proceeded to determine the monetary claims on the available material.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £8,937.80 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,076.90. In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,881.60.
The total award was £12,896.30. The judgment records no separate awards for basic compensation, compensatory compensation, interest, or injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £8,937.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,938 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,076.90. | Upheld | — | £2,077 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,881.60. | Upheld | — | £1,882 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,896
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.