Case 3302814/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v OBS Medics Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302814/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tynan, sitting at Cambridge with the claimant in person and the respondent neither attending nor represented, found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages in early 2024, had failed to pay holiday entitlement, and had dismissed the claimant in breach of contractual notice.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and the judge ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £888.32. Total monetary orders were £3,849.36 gross for unauthorised deductions, £165.24 gross for holiday pay, £1,453.85 net damages for breach of notice, and the £888.32 basic award, giving a total of £6,356.77. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions between 1 January 2024 and 29 February 2024; gross. | Upheld | — | £3,849 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; gross. | Upheld | — | £165 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contractual four weeks' notice; net figure as recorded by the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £1,454 |
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award only; the judgment records no separate compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £888 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,357
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £888
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.