Case 4100027/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Dr A Chowdry — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100027/2017
- Decision date
- 3 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case proceeded under rule 21 because the respondent did not lodge an ET3 response. On the available material, Employment Judge Ian McPherson held that Mrs Maria Collins's complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay holiday pay succeeded. The judge also directed that the respondent's participation at any later remedy hearing on unfair dismissal would be limited to the extent permitted by the judge hearing that hearing.
Remedy for unfair dismissal was not decided in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had lodged a schedule of loss seeking a basic award of £3,712.99, a compensatory award of £10,567 and £7,500 described as compensation for injury to hurt feelings, but said evidence from the claimant would be required before those amounts could be determined.
The judge did determine the holiday pay claim on the papers. The respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £465.92 for 16 days of leave accrued but not taken at termination of employment. The tribunal also ordered reimbursement of the £250 tribunal fee under rule 75(1)(b), and noted that liability for any later hearing fee would be determined at the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability succeeded under the rule 21 judgment; remedy for unfair dismissal was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; the award was for 16 days' leave accrued but not taken at termination. | Upheld | — | £466 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £716
- 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.