Case 1303561/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Karen Mullard v Rowley Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303561/2022
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Karen Mullard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment in default under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time limit. On that basis, it found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,293.24 gross.
It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £314.83. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,026, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £1,368.00.
The tribunal recorded that the total sum payable was £4,002.07 gross, and that the claimant was responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions on the amounts awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,293 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £315 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,026 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,368 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,002
- 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.