Case 1800007/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Whittaker v Hartley Domiciliary Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800007/2024
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Whittaker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Whittaker’s claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 2 January 2024. Hartley Domiciliary Care Ltd did not present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Brain determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of £375 gross, representing three days’ gross wages at £125 per day for work undertaken on 4, 5 and 6 December 2023.
The tribunal also found a breach of contract because the respondent had not reimbursed the claimant’s expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and it awarded damages of £19.35 for that item.
The claimant’s request for compensation for emotional and mental stress was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to award that compensation on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. The respondent was ordered to pay £394.35 in total by 17 May 2024, and the hearing listed for 30 May 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages for three days' gross pay at £125 per day for work undertaken on 4, 5 and 6 December 2023. | Upheld | — | £375 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to reimburse expenses incurred in undertaking the work on 4, 5 and 6 December 2023. | Upheld | — | £19 |
| Other | Claim for compensation for emotional and mental stress dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make that award on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £394
- 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.