Case 6012365/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Y Umar v Entoplast — 2024
- Case reference
- 6012365/2024
- Decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Y Umar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 20 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim (or part of it) under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the period 1 July 2024 to 9 July 2024, that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,246.14 gross for the wage deductions, £6,736.32 net damages for breach of notice, and £1,606.14 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement, totalling £9,588.60.
The claimant's remaining claims were not determined and are listed for a hearing on 20 July 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 July 2024 to 9 July 2024; £1,246.14 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,246 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; net damages of £6,736.32 awarded. | Upheld | — | £6,736 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; £1,606.14 gross awarded. Categorised under holiday_pay; the gov.uk listing also references Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £1,606 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,589
- 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.