Case 6000724/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Conning v Austin May Medical Ltd T/A Xander Hendrix Healthcare — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000724/2025
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Conning
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claim was presented by the respondent. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, the claimant's complaints of unlawful deduction from wages, notice pay, unpaid holiday pay, unfair dismissal and a statutory redundancy payment succeeded.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £15,243.54, which it recorded as the full amount sought. The award comprised £7,070 as a statutory redundancy payment, £1,992.40 for 14.8 days' accrued but untaken holiday, £1,470.14 in remaining unpaid salary from September to December 2024, and £4,711 for 7 weeks' unpaid notice pay. All sums are payable on a net basis, after deduction of any tax and national insurance contributions.
The hearing listed for 17-18 July 2025 was vacated. Judgment was given by Employment Judge Baty, dated 2 June 2025, and sent to the parties on 6 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Remaining unpaid salary from September to December 2024. | Upheld | — | £1,470 |
| Breach of contract | 7 weeks' unpaid notice pay (notice pay claim). | Upheld | — | £4,711 |
| Holiday pay | Pay for 14.8 days' accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £1,992 |
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded under Rule 22 (no response presented). Judgment did not allocate a specific monetary sum to this complaint. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £7,070 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,244
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
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.