Case 1403768/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Churchlake Care Partnership LLP — 2023

Case reference: 1403768/2022
Decision date: 25 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Churchlake Care Partnership LLP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was determined under rule 21 because the respondent did not attend, no appearance was entered, and no valid response had been presented. Employment Judge N J Roper heard the matter in chambers at Plymouth on 15 May 2023 and gave judgment on the same date.

The tribunal found that Dr Sarah Batchelor had been unfairly dismissed, but it recorded that she sought only a declaration to that effect and did not seek compensation, reinstatement or re-engagement. No monetary award was made for the unfair dismissal finding.

The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of unpaid salary during July 2022. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £6,666.87.

A further claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay also succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay four weeks' pay in the gross sum of £4,361.66. The total gross sums ordered therefore came to £11,028.53.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but recorded that she sought only a declaration and did not seek compensation, reinstatement or re-engagement.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim succeeded in respect of unpaid salary for July 2022, and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £6,666.87.	Upheld	—	£6,667
Holiday pay	The claim succeeded in respect of accrued but unpaid holiday pay, and the respondent was ordered to pay four weeks' pay in the gross sum of £4,361.66.	Upheld	—	£4,362

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £11,029; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.