Case 2401447/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Price v Tecura Healthcare Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401447/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Price
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Price’s case was heard in private on 27 February 2025 before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone. The respondent, Tecura Healthcare Group Ltd, filed no response and did not attend. The tribunal therefore determined the claims on the material before it and recorded oral reasons at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. It ordered payment of £10,200 net, described as three months across July, October and December 2024 at £3,400 net each. The same figure of £10,200 net was also awarded for wrongful dismissal after the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed without the contractual notice period of 3 months.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,700 net for 12 days. The total sum payable within 14 days of the written record of the decision was £22,100.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found an unauthorised deduction from wages for three months in 2024, stated as July, October and December 2024 at £3,400 net each. | Upheld | — | £10,200 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without the contractual notice of 3 months and awarded net notice pay of £10,200. | Upheld | — | £10,200 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid 'holiday entitlement'; this has been classified as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,100
- 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.