Case 3303900/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Malvi Shah v Colney Hatch Lane Surgery — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303900/2024
- Decision date
- 16 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Malvi Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Malvi Shah brought complaints against Colney Hatch Lane Surgery concerning notice pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The hearing was conducted by Employment Judge Elliott at Watford by CVP on 9 and 10 June 2025. The tribunal recorded that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal found the notice pay breach of contract complaint well-founded, and also found the complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay well-founded. On each of those three complaints, the respondent accepted liability. The judgment records that no remedy was due because the respondent had paid the figure specified by the claimant on 24 March 2025.
The complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. No separate monetary award was made for any claim, and the judgment does not record any further remedy order beyond noting the prior payment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded; the respondent accepted liability. The tribunal recorded that no remedy was due because the respondent had paid the figure specified by the claimant on 24 March 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded; the respondent accepted liability. The tribunal recorded that no remedy was due because the respondent had paid the figure specified by the claimant on 24 March 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint was well-founded; the respondent accepted liability. The tribunal recorded that no remedy was due because the respondent had paid the figure specified by the claimant on 24 March 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.