Case 2402803/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Nzundu v The Edgbaston Clinic Ltd trading as Manchester Private Hospital — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402803/2019
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Nzundu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn the information before the judge, and because the respondent had not presented a response, the tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment for Mrs K Nzundu. It found that The Edgbaston Clinic Ltd trading as Manchester Private Hospital had made unauthorised deductions from her wages and ordered payment of £2,003.15 net.
The tribunal also found that the respondent breached the contract by failing to give one week's notice of termination and awarded £601.25 in damages, representing one week's gross pay. It further awarded £100.00 under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for bank interest and charges caused by the non-payment, and noted that the notice-pay award would be treated by HMRC as Post-Employment Notice Pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £2,003.15 plus £100.00 compensation under s.24(2) ERA 1996 for bank interest and charges caused by non-payment. | Upheld | — | £2,103 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for failing to give one week's notice of termination, assessed at one week's gross pay. | Upheld | — | £601 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,704
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £100
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.