Case 3313662/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Khan v AR Healthcare and Pharma Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313662/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 24 May 2023, Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst considered the claimant’s claims against AR Healthcare and Pharma Ltd, which did not attend. The judgment records that the claimant’s claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave, described as holiday pay, was successful and the tribunal awarded £525.
The tribunal also found in the claimant’s favour on a breach of contract claim relating to notice pay and awarded damages of £1,372.60. A further claim for unauthorised deduction of wages was successful, with an award of £1,669.24.
The judgment notes that the figures at paragraphs 1 and 3 were gross figures, and that the respondent was responsible for paying the correct tax on those sums and then paying the balance to the claimant. The combined total of the awards is £3,566.84.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim described as compensation related to entitlement to leave (holiday pay). The tribunal awarded £525, recorded as a gross figure. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay. The tribunal awarded damages of £1,372.60. | Upheld | — | £1,373 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deduction of wages. The tribunal awarded £1,669.24, recorded as a gross figure. | Upheld | — | £1,669 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,567
- 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.