Case 2303448/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Kayanja v Divine Motions Healthcare Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303448/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs V Kayanja presented a claim against Divine Motions Healthcare Ltd in the London South Employment Tribunals on 03 August 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the materials before the tribunal, the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages of £445.64 gross for November 2020, £2,859.75 gross for April 2021, and £1,752.75 gross for May 2021. The tribunal therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £5,058.14 in total. It also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any payments owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for November 2020, April 2021 and May 2021, totalling £5,058.14 gross. | Upheld | — | £5,058 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,058
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.