Case 2301844/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Bailo v Home Comfort Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301844/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge England Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Bailo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South by CVP on 24 October 2022 before Employment Judge England. It granted the respondent permission to rely on its ET3, which had been filed out of time.
Ms Bailo's claims for unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract succeeded. The judgment records that she was owed £724.38 for gross wages, £717.45 for gross holiday pay, and £466.83 for gross mileage expenses. The written record does not split those sums between the two successful claims, so they are recorded as a combined award.
The claim described in the judgment as one for 'financial distress' was dismissed, and the respondent's counterclaim was also dismissed. The total amount recorded in the judgment is £1,908.66.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded together with the breach of contract claim. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was owed £724.38 for gross wages, £717.45 for gross holiday pay, and £466.83 for gross mileage expenses. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded together with the unlawful deduction of wages claim. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was owed £724.38 for gross wages, £717.45 for gross holiday pay, and £466.83 for gross mileage expenses. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claim described in the judgment as one for 'financial distress' was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,909
- 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.