Case 1308762/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Shaji v Swan Care Solutions Ltd and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 1308762/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Shaji
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 15 April 2023 to 21 April 2024, ordering the respondent to pay £20,400.76 net, and likewise upheld the holiday pay complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 in the sum of £2,168.85 net, with the respondent responsible for any tax or National Insurance. The complaint under section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning alleged payments to the employer was dismissed on withdrawal, as was the claim against the second respondent.
The tribunal further found that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and considered it just and equitable to increase the unauthorised deductions and holiday pay awards by 20% under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, producing additional sums of £4,080.15 and £433.77 respectively.
The respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with no separate financial award made on that point. The tribunal also found the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars when proceedings began and, finding no exceptional circumstances, awarded an amount equal to four weeks' gross pay (£1,760) under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Net sum of unauthorised deductions for the period 15 April 2023 to 21 April 2024. Respondent responsible for any tax/NI. | Upheld | — | £20,401 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay for holidays accrued but not taken on termination; well-founded under unauthorised deductions and/or Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £2,169 |
| Working time regulations | Breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 found alongside the holiday pay deduction; remedy folded into the holiday pay award above. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written itemised pay statements under s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for 15 April 2023 to 21 April 2024. No separate financial award made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars when proceedings began; award of four weeks' gross pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,760 |
| Other | Complaint under section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to alleged payments to the employer was dismissed on withdrawal. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,844
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 15 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.