Case 2304400/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Cann v KTB Rehabilitation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304400/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Cann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not file an ET3 and the time for doing so had expired. The tribunal dealt with the matter under Rule 21(2) and determined the claimant's remaining heads of claim on the papers.
The tribunal found the claimant's redundancy pay claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £2,855 in respect of that head of claim. It also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's pay relating to notice pay and ordered payment of £3,115 net of tax.
The claimant's maternity pay claim was dismissed because the tribunal considered that an award would amount to double recovery alongside the notice pay award. The separate claim for an additional sum to cover the costs of taking out loans was also dismissed as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £2,855. | Upheld | — | £2,855 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from pay relating to notice pay and ordered payment of £3,115 net of tax. | Upheld | — | £3,115 |
| Other | The claimant's maternity pay claim was dismissed because an award would have represented double recovery alongside the notice pay award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim for an additional sum to cover the costs of taking out loans was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,970
- 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.