Case 2302292/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. M. Kaur v Care Homes of Distinction Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302292/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mason Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. M. Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not submit an ET3 response. Liability was entered in favour of Ms. M. Kaur. The judgment does not set out any detailed findings on the underlying facts or distinguish between the pleaded causes of action in the extracted text.
The order states that any remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be decided at a remedy hearing, with notice to be sent to the parties. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that, because the respondent did not present an ET3 response, judgment on liability was entered in favour of the claimant. No separate claim-by-claim reasoning or remedy amount is set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that, because the respondent did not present an ET3 response, judgment on liability was entered in favour of the claimant. No separate claim-by-claim reasoning or remedy amount is set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that, because the respondent did not present an ET3 response, judgment on liability was entered in favour of the claimant. No separate claim-by-claim reasoning or remedy amount is set out in the extracted text. | 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.