Case 1804636/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S George v Your Choice 4 Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804636/2019
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S George
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Miss S George against Your Choice 4 Care Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had presented claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, notice pay, and failure to provide a written pay statement. Notice of the claim was sent to the respondent on 5 September 2019, and no response was presented.
On the information before Employment Judge Shepherd, all three claims succeeded. The judgment does not contain further findings on the underlying facts or liability beyond the respondent's failure to present a valid response and the judge's conclusion that the claims should succeed on the material then available.
The tribunal directed that the remedy for the successful claims would be determined at a Remedy Hearing. The hearing listed for 31 October 2019 was converted to a Remedy Hearing at the same time and venue, and the judgment records no award in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim of unauthorised deduction from wages. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records a separate claim for notice pay. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records a claim for failure to provide a written pay statement. No dedicated claim-type enum applies. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.