Case 2300794/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Michele Andrews v Sun Rose Care Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300794/2020
- Decision date
- 6 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Michele Andrews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Michele Andrews brought a claim against Sun Rose Care Ltd for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent entered no response and did not attend the remote hearing before Employment Judge Tsamados, who sat alone on 6 August 2020 at London South by CVP.
The written judgment records that the claimant had suffered unauthorised deductions from her wages. On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claim and awarded compensation of £1,218.60 net, payable by the respondent forthwith.
The record does not set out a detailed written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning beyond the liability finding and the amount awarded. It also states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant suffered unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. The award is described as £1,218.60 net payable forthwith; the written record does not split the sum into separate heads. | Upheld | — | £1,219 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,219
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 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.