Case 2304435/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Wadmore v Expertise Homecare (Central & West Kent) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304435/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Wadmore
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Wadmore brought claims for arrears of pay/unlawful deductions from wages covering on-call pay, overtime and a recruitment event, a separate unlawful deduction claim concerning annual leave deducted from final pay, and a notice pay claim. The tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant, Natasha Gleadle, Natalie Richards and Claudia Pooke, and considered the Claimant's contract terms on hours, holiday and deductions.
On the on-call issue, the tribunal found the Claimant worked intermittently during on-call weekends and no more than 14 hours over the weekend. It held that her £128 flat-rate payment equated to £9.14 per hour, which was above the National Minimum Wage rates in force, and therefore rejected the complaint about on-call pay. It also rejected the overtime claim, finding there was no express or implied contractual term entitling the Claimant to overtime pay, and rejected the recruitment event complaint because the Respondent had already paid £221.15 for that attendance.
On the annual leave deduction, the tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence that Ms Richards agreed she could take two weeks' paid compassionate leave after her father died, and that this leave was not annual leave. The Respondent was entitled under the contract to deduct overpaid annual leave, but only in relation to the actual annual leave overpayment. The tribunal calculated that the proper deduction was £144.00, leaving £107.92 gross payable, which it ordered the Respondent to pay.
The notice pay claim failed. The tribunal found that the Claimant resigned without notice on 15 September 2019, that notice was not discussed in the resignation conversation, and that she did not attend work to work any notice period. On that basis, the Respondent was not in breach of contract for failing to pay notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the Claimant's complaints about on-call pay, overtime pay and attendance at the recruitment event. It found she worked no more than 14 hours over an on-call weekend, so the flat-rate £128 payment produced an hourly rate above the National Minimum Wage, found no express or implied contractual entitlement to paid overtime, and found the recruitment event had already been paid in the final payslip. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted that Ms Richards agreed the Claimant could take two weeks' paid compassionate leave after her father's death and that this was not annual leave. It held the Respondent could deduct only £144.00 for 1.162 days of overpaid annual leave, so £107.92 gross remained properly payable and was awarded. | Upheld | — | £108 |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the Claimant resigned without notice on 15 September 2019 and did not work any notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £108
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regs 27(1)(b) and 32(1) National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 28 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Driver v Air India Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 830
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.