Case 2302553/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Penn v The Estate of Carola Penruddock (Deceased) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302553/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Penn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Penn had been employed by Ms Carola Penruddock as a full-time live-in carer from 16 October 2012 until Ms Penruddock's death on 8 January 2022, when the contract ended by frustration. The tribunal accepted that Ms Penn then stayed on from 9 January to 4 February 2022 under a separate ad hoc caretaker/administrator arrangement connected with the winding-up of the estate. The claim form was presented on 30 July 2022 after ACAS early conciliation ran from 7 June to 19 July 2022.
The parties agreed that a redundancy payment was due, and the tribunal ordered payment of £7,344 under Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that Ms Penn was 53 at termination, had been employed from 16 October 2012 to 8 January 2022, and had a gross weekly wage of £544. On that basis it made the redundancy payment award in the agreed sum.
On the other claims, the tribunal applied the statutory time-limit provisions in sections 23(2), 23(4) and 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the 'not reasonably practicable' test, referring to Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton and London Underground Ltd v Noel. It found that although Ms Penn had received reassurances that payment might be made later, and had been speaking to CAB from mid-April 2022, those matters did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. The tribunal held that the carer wages claim was around 10 weeks out of time and the caretaker/administrator wages claim was around 6.5 weeks out of time after excluding the ACAS period, so both were dismissed, as was the holiday pay claim.
For the carer wages and holiday pay claims, the respondent had accepted net amounts of £2,000 and £933 respectively if the claims had been in time, but no award was made because the claims were dismissed as out of time. The claims relating to pension contributions and injury to feelings were also dismissed as not well-founded, with the tribunal noting that no evidence had been provided and that it was not clear it would have had jurisdiction to consider them in any event.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £7,344 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages said to arise from the claimant's carer work from 25 December 2021 to 8 January 2022. The tribunal held it was out of time and dismissed it. The respondent accepted that, if the claim had been in time, the net amount would have been £2,000. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for wages said to arise from the separate caretaker/administrator arrangement from 9 January 2022 to 4 February 2022. The tribunal held it was around 6.5 weeks out of time and dismissed it. The respondent did not accept the sum claimed and said a further hearing would have been needed to determine the amount if the claim had been in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay. The tribunal held it was out of time and dismissed it. The respondent accepted that, if the claim had been in time, the net amount would have been £933. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim in relation to employer pension contributions. The tribunal said no evidence had been provided and dismissed it as not well-founded; it also noted that it was not clear the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider such a claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,344
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Part XI ERA 1996
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] EAT 108
- London Underground Ltd v Noel [1999] IRLR 621
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.