Case 2304124/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ajagbe v RCB Healthcare Group HELD AT: London South (by CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304124/2023
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ajagbe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Ajagbe, had been employed since March 2012 as a Home Administrator at Woodford House, originally by HC One and from 30 August 2022 by the respondent following a TUPE transfer. Her employment terminated on 7 April 2023. She brought claims for unlawful deduction of wages and outstanding holiday pay. The tribunal found, on the basis of the claimant's records and an unredacted HC One payroll record, that HC One had agreed she could carry over annual leave into the 2022/23 leave year and that her entitlement for that year was 391 hours.
On the wages claim, the tribunal compared the claimant's payslips against her contractual rate of £22,370 per annum gross and found that for the 31 weeks and 2 days between 1 September 2022 and 7 April 2023 she should have been paid £13,502 gross but had only received £12,042.73 gross, producing a shortfall of £1,459.27 gross. That figure included the disputed week of 10 March 2023.
On the holiday pay claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant's contemporaneous figure of 220 hours owed at the date of resignation, deducted 160 hours for the four weeks of leave taken during the notice period and a further 24 hours for three bank holidays that had not previously been deducted, and added 4.5 hours for the 2023/24 leave year up to termination. This produced 40.5 hours outstanding, which at £10.75 per hour amounted to £435.38 gross.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal calculated a shortfall of £1,459.27 gross for the period 1 September 2022 to 7 April 2023, comparing what the claimant should have been paid (£13,502 gross) against what she actually received (£12,042.73 gross). This calculation included the disputed week of 10 March 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,459 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found 40.5 hours of outstanding holiday pay owed on termination, at the claimant's hourly rate of £10.75, totalling £435.38 gross. Pleaded under Working Time Regulations 1998 / breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £435 |
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay claim was framed under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and breach of contract; recorded separately here to reflect the gov.uk listing category, but the monetary award is captured in the holiday_pay entry to avoid double-counting. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal calculated a shortfall of £1,459.27 gross for the period 1 September 2022 to 7 April 2023, comparing what the claimant should have been paid (£13,502 gross) against what she actually received (£12,042.73 gross). This calculation included the disputed week of 10 March 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,459 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found 40.5 hours of outstanding holiday pay owed on termination, at the claimant's hourly rate of £10.75, totalling £435.38 gross. Pleaded under Working Time Regulations 1998 / breach of contract. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,895
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
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.