Case 2301976/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Donovan v Ashford Community Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301976/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London south via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Donovan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khalil heard the case on 16 December 2022 at London South via CVP and sat alone. The respondent’s response had been rejected as out of time and, although Mr Kemp appeared for the respondent, his participation was limited by permission of the judge. The judgment records that the claimant, Mrs S Donovan, succeeded on all of the claims determined.
The tribunal held that the statutory redundancy pay claim was well founded and awarded £1,282.80. It also found the holiday pay claim well founded and awarded £10.69 gross. The claim for unauthorised deductions was likewise well founded, with an award of £65.26 gross.
The judgment states that it was the claimant’s responsibility to account for any tax or national insurance that may be payable. No other remedy components or legal tests were recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the statutory redundancy pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £1,282.80. | Upheld | — | £1,283 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £10.69 gross. | Upheld | — | £11 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions well founded and ordered payment of £65.26 gross. | Upheld | — | £65 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,359
- 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.