Case 2302936/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Creelman v Mr R Folsom FINAL HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302936/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Creelman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a nanny from 14 November 2019 to 9 April 2020. At the hearing she confirmed that she had no claim for arrears of pay. The tribunal found that she was entitled to notice pay and accrued holiday pay, and it made net awards of £550 for each, giving a total award of £1,100.
The claimant also sought damages in relation to a reference she said was bad. The tribunal dismissed that claim because it had no jurisdiction to award damages in relation to a reference even if a bad reference had been established. The respondent denied giving such a reference.
The respondent's counterclaim for £10,622.70 for the cost of photographs of his child was dismissed. The tribunal found that the taking of the photographs and the manner of taking and transmitting them did not appear to be a term of the contract of employment, that the claimant was willing to cooperate in transmission if possible, and that any such term would likely have been excluded from the tribunal's breach of contract jurisdiction by Article 5(c) of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for notice pay. The tribunal awarded £550 net; the respondent had said he would pay four weeks' notice but paid only three weeks. | Upheld | — | £550 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay. The respondent accepted that the claimant was entitled to £550 holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £550 |
| Other | Claim for damages in relation to a reference. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to award damages in relation to a reference even if a bad reference had been established; the respondent denied giving such a reference. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for £10,622.70 in respect of photographs of his child. The tribunal found no enforceable contractual term relating to the photographs and said jurisdiction was likely excluded by Article 5(c) of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Article 5(c) of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
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.