Case 6007573/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Jasmine Ash v Pharma Targeting Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007573/2026
- Decision date
- 8 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jasmine Ash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that Pharma Targeting Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Jasmine Ash’s wages and ordered payment of £1,879.55. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of non-payment of pension contributions and awarded £182 in damages.
The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed because the claimant had insufficient qualifying service. The two successful monetary awards total £2,061.55.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,880 |
| Breach of contract | Damages concerned non-payment of pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £182 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant had insufficient qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,062
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.