Case 1600467/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Kayleigh Havens v 1st Grade Care Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600467/2023
- Decision date
- 4 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Duncan Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kayleigh Havens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Kayleigh Havens, did not attend the hearing despite notice being sent to her email address. The tribunal noted sections 86 to 89 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and recorded that the respondent offered to pay the difference between sick pay and full notice pay.
Employment Judge G Duncan decided that 1st Grade Care Ltd had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £406.90 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted.
The judgment does not set out any separate split of remedy beyond that single gross award. It also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £406.90. The judgment states the claimant is responsible for any income tax and employee national insurance contributions due on the award. | Upheld | — | £407 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £407
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 86 to 89 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.