Case 6017069/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R English v Ear Doctors Microsuction Clinic UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017069/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R English
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R English brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Ear Doctors Microsuction Clinic UK Limited. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.
On remedy, the judgment awarded a basic award of £416. The calculation given was one week's pay for each complete year of service when the claimant was aged between 22 and 41, using a weekly pay figure of £208 and a multiplier of two, producing £416. The judgment stated that the respondent must pay the claimant £416 in total.
The written record also included the standard tribunal interest notice. It recorded 28 October 2025 as the relevant decision day, 29 October 2025 as the calculation day, and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate of interest if the award is not paid within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the tribunal determined the claim under rule 22. The unfair dismissal complaint was found well-founded. The only monetary award stated in the judgment was a basic award of £416, with no separate compensatory award quantified in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £416 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £416
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £416
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.