Case 1403402/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Twomey v Red Jacket Specialist Care Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403402/2019
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Twomey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of non-payment of salary (£1,246.14), a DBS check (£54.50), and training (£11.39). It also found a breach of contract in relation to outstanding mileage and expenses (£132.55).
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £70.00. It also recorded that the respondent had failed to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment in accordance with section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded four weeks' wages of £1,384.60. The total sum ordered was £2,899.18.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for non-payment of salary. | Upheld | — | £1,246 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of a DBS check. | Upheld | — | £55 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of training. | Upheld | — | £11 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for outstanding mileage and expenses claims. | Upheld | — | £133 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £70 |
| Other | Award of four weeks' wages under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,899
- 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.