Claimant v Dermal Diagnostics Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Under rule 21, the Employment Judge made a determination on the papers and found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages totalling £6,791.25 gross including pension contributions.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined on the papers that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of unpaid expenses amounting to £795.36.
The respondent failed to present a valid response. The tribunal determined that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £2,100.
The respondent failed to present a valid response. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £4,430 gross in respect of accrued but unpaid holiday.
Facts
Dr Ghadar brought claims against Dermal Diagnostics Limited for unpaid wages, expenses, redundancy pay and holiday pay. The respondent failed to present a valid response within the time limit. The Employment Judge determined the claims on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
Decision
The tribunal made a default judgment in favour of the claimant under rule 21. The respondent was ordered to pay £6,791.25 for unlawful deduction of wages, £795.36 for breach of contract (expenses), £2,100 for statutory redundancy payment, and £4,430 for unpaid holiday entitlement.
Practical note
Where a respondent fails to file a valid ET3 response on time, the tribunal can determine claims on the papers under rule 21, resulting in default judgment for the claimant.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 2600175/2025
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No