Case 1401209/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Rago v United Care Concepts Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401209/2025
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Rago
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Exeter Employment Tribunal on 27 February 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Gray decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The judgment is a short liability and remedy decision on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,682.68. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,704.12. The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,800.56. The total sum awarded was £15,187.36.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,683 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £4,704.12. | Upheld | — | £4,704 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,800.56. | Upheld | — | £8,801 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,187
- 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.