Case 6019420/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Theodosios Kontozoglou v Medilink Consulting Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019420/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Theodosios Kontozoglou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first corrected the respondent name, dismissing Mr Syed Khizer as the named respondent and substituting Medilink Consulting Ltd. The hearing was before Regional Employment Judge Burgher at East London Hearing Centre on 23 April 2025, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not attending.
The only substantive claim recorded in the written judgment was a claim for unlawful deduction of wages arising from notice pay for a planned 3 month locum agreement. That claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent, described as a locum agency, was contractually entitled to end the 3 month placement early because it was acting on the directions of the end user, Colchester Hospital, and the hospital was itself contractually entitled to end the arrangement in that way.
No monetary award was made. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned notice pay for a planned 3 month locum agreement. The tribunal held the respondent, described as a locum agency, was contractually entitled to end the placement early pursuant to the end user's instructions, and that the end user was itself contractually entitled to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.