Case 1802145/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Ejim v Hamilton Care Ltd HELD by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802145/2022
- Decision date
- 8 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Ejim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Ejim was employed by Hamilton Care Ltd as a night care assistant from 28 December 2021 to 12 January 2022. The tribunal found that she worked full shifts from 10.00pm to 8.00am, that she gave the respondent her bank details, and that she was never paid during her employment. It also found that she resigned because the respondent stopped giving her shifts and would not put her on bank work.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant worked 120 hours at £9.50 per hour, making £1,140.00 in wages due. It found that the respondent, as employer, did not pay the claimant any of her wages in circumstances where it was not entitled to do so, and it awarded the claimant £1,140.00 for unauthorised deduction of wages.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was withdrawn. The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, and no separate determination on that issue was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,140 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,140
- 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.