Case 2303685/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Kandler-Dick v Miss Iesha Notice t/a Ice Tickles Childcare — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303685/2018
- Decision date
- 29 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Ashford
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Kandler-Dick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Ashford on 27 September 2019 before Employment Judge Corrigan sitting alone, the Claimant succeeded in her claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal held that £68 had been unlawfully deducted from notice pay and that £62.64 was due for failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, giving a total award on that claim of £130.64, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent had not paid the Claimant's accrued holiday pay. It ordered payment of £195.75 for that sum, again subject to tax and National Insurance deductions. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and records the total payable by the Respondent as £326.39.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unlawful deduction of wages claim was well-founded. The award consisted of £68 deducted from notice pay and £62.64 for failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Respondent had not paid accrued holiday pay and ordered payment of £195.75, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £196 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £326
- 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.