Case 1300084/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ryder v Community Care Worker Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300084/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ryder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Edmonds recorded that it was proper to determine the claim on that basis.
The tribunal found that Community Care Worker Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,655.75 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £200 net damages for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £216.25 gross. It stated that the sums payable other than notice pay were gross amounts and that the respondent was responsible for deductions of income tax and National Insurance contributions. The total sum ordered was £2,072.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered £1,655.75 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,656 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £200 net damages. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £216.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £216 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,072
- across all upheld claims
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.