Case 2400542/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Harthan v Glow Care Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400542/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Harthan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under Rule 21. The tribunal made four monetary awards in the claimant’s favour: an unauthorised deduction from wages of £494.62, breach of contract damages for notice of £997.50, a redundancy payment of £1,662.50, and unpaid holiday entitlement of £266.00.
The judgment records that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and had failed to pay holiday entitlement. It also records that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract as to notice and was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The total amount payable was £3,420.62.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £494.62. | Upheld | — | £495 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £997.50. | Upheld | — | £998 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,662.50. | Upheld | — | £1,663 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £266.00. | Upheld | — | £266 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,421
- 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.