Case 3309584/2023 · Employment Tribunal
H Ditchburn v Madhu Dogra — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309584/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
H Ditchburn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under that rule.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of GBP 404. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of GBP 1,838.
The claimant also sought an order requiring payments to the Inland Revenue for tax and national insurance and provision of payslips, P60 and P45. The tribunal dismissed that element because it stated it did not have power to make the order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Rule 21 judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay the claimant GBP 404. | Upheld | — | £404 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of GBP 1,838. | Upheld | — | £1,838 |
| Other | The element seeking an order for tax and national insurance payments and payslips, P60 and P45 was dismissed because the tribunal stated it had no power to make that order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,242
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.