Case 4100982/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A M Babar v Theo Health Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 4100982/2026
- Decision date
- 29 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A M Babar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented by Theo Health Limited. Employment Judge L Wiseman therefore issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr A M Babar’s wages and ordered payment of £20,416.66 gross for four months from November 2025 to February 2026. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay 3.5 days of holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £942.31 gross.
The judgment further records that the claimant resigned in breach of contract in respect of notice and orders the respondent to pay two months’ damages, stated in the extracted text as “£8,300,00” net and interpreted here as £8,300.00. The three awards total £29,658.97.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award is stated to be gross and covers four months, November 2025 to February 2026. | Upheld | — | £20,417 |
| Holiday pay | The award is stated to be gross and relates to 3.5 days of holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £942 |
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment formats the net damages award as “£8,300,00”; this has been interpreted as £8,300.00. The judgment describes it as two months’ damages in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £8,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,659
- 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.