Case 6018751/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Asher v 1PhyioUK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018751/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Asher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a musculoskeletal physiotherapist by 1PhysioUK Limited, with the Tribunal accepting that his contractual entitlement was to 37.5 hours per week at an annual salary of £25,600. Employment Judge Heather, sitting alone, found that the short time working clause in the contract was void and unenforceable, so the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to provide and pay for the contracted hours.
The Tribunal found the claimant to be a credible witness and considered the respondent's representative's evidence inconsistent in several respects. The complaints of breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages (relating to deductions in March, April and August 2024) and holiday pay on termination were all well-founded.
The respondent was ordered to pay £17,920.39 in damages for breach of contract, £93.43 for unauthorised deductions, and £2,023.40 for unpaid accrued holiday, giving a total of £20,037.22.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of contract in relation to wages, calculated using gross pay. | Upheld | — | £17,920 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions on 5 March, 5 April and 5 August 2024. | Upheld | — | £93 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid accrued holiday at termination; 4.11 weeks at £492.31/week. | Upheld | — | £2,023 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,037
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 222 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 223 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 224 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.