Case 1300148/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300148/2020
- Decision date
- 18 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Perry sat alone at the final merits hearing on 16 and 17 November 2020. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed, stating that it was not well founded. The judgment does not set out detailed reasoning on the dismissal complaint beyond that conclusion.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deductions from wages complaint. It ordered the respondent, Deepdene Care Limited, to pay the claimant £422.00 gross, described in the judgment as agreed. No other remedy components are recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refers to the claimant's complaint that she was 'constructively and unfairly dismissed' and dismisses it as not well founded; no separate reasoning is given for the constructive dismissal aspect. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to the claimant's complaint that she was 'constructively and unfairly dismissed' and dismisses it as not well founded; no separate reasoning is given for the unfair dismissal aspect. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages and ordered payment of £422.00 gross, described as agreed. | Upheld | — | £422 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £422
- 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.