Case 1801836/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Summerhouse Ltd T/a Eldercare — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801836/2019
- Decision date
- 1 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe record amends the respondent name to Summerhouse Limited t/a Eldercare and notes that the respondent did not appear. The tribunal recorded that the claim for unfair dismissal/public interest disclosure (PID) succeeded under section 103 ERA 1996, the claim for detriment arising because of a PID succeeded under section 47 ERA 1996, and the claim for failure to pay wages properly payable succeeded as an unlawful deduction of wages claim.
On review, the judge reduced the basic award to nil because the claimant had less than two years' service. The written record awards £1,680 compensation for the dismissal claim, £900 for PID detriment by way of injury to feelings, and £240 for unlawful deduction of wages, together with a £480 uplift under section 38 ERA 2002, giving a total award of £3,300. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out further detailed findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records this as a claim for unfair dismissal/public interest disclosure (PID) and says it succeeded under section 103 ERA 1996. On review, the basic award was reduced to nil because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment arising because of a PID under section 47 ERA 1996. The award recorded is injury to feelings of £900. | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for failure to pay wages properly payable succeeded. The written record also awards a £480 uplift under section 38 ERA 2002, but does not link that uplift to a separate claim. | Upheld | — | £240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,300
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,680
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 103 ERA 1996
- section 47 ERA 1996
- section 38 ERA 2002
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.