Case 1400789/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Mugabe v Jayjay Social Care Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400789/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Mugabe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 12 April 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to determine the claim without a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages (£4,069.37), had failed to provide itemised pay statements and written terms and conditions in accordance with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (£1,432), and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement (£2,227.40). The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £7,728.77 in total.
The claimant withdrew the race discrimination claim by email dated 30 September 2024, and the hearing listed for 23 January 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment: respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £4,069 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements and written terms/conditions under section 1 ERA 1996. Not a standalone enum category; classified as 'other'. | Upheld | — | £1,432 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,227 |
| Race discrimination | Claimant withdrew race discrimination claim by email dated 30 September 2024. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,729
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 1 ERA 1996
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.