Case 6020155/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Dushin v Machine Medicine Technologies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020155/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Dushin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 28 November 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, although a late-filed ET3 stated that it did not dispute the claimant's holiday pay claim. The Employment Judge therefore determined the matter under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £3,692.28 if that sum had not already been paid before the date of judgment. The listed hearing on 1 May 2025 was cancelled.
The judgment also records that an additional sum claimed by the claimant appeared to be an application for a preparation time order rather than recoverable damages, and the claimant was directed to the rules governing such applications if he wished to pursue one. No separate award was made for that item in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent did not dispute the claimant's holiday pay claim in a late-filed ET3. The tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 and ordered payment of the holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £3,692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,692
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, rule 22
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, rules 72-82
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, rule 75
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.