Case 2302178/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1) Ms P K Ntsomeng 2) Ms A P Monametsi 3) Ms G Bagatiseng v PHIL Healthcare Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302178/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 named1) Ms P K Ntsomeng 2) Ms A P Monametsi 3) Ms G Bagatiseng
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tsamados, sitting alone via CVP at London South Croydon on 3 October 2024, heard a multiple claim brought by three claimants against PHIL Healthcare Services Ltd. The respondent had not entered a response and did not attend; documents posted to its registered office were returned to sender.
The First Claimant Ms Ntsomeng's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 5 to 22 January 2024 succeeded; she was awarded £1,040 gross representing unpaid Healthcare Assistant work (eleven nights at £100/night plus £40 for an induction course). The Third Claimant Ms Bagatiseng's complaint succeeded for the period 19 January to 4 February 2024; she was awarded £1,000 gross (ten days at £100).
The Second Claimant Ms Monametsi's claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the judge having waited until 3.48pm and made attempts to contact her, but she failed to attend or notify the Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,040
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.