Case 2403088/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Metoda v Nutrifit Care Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation.) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403088/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs E Metoda
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not attend and were not represented. The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3037.50.
The tribunal found the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay well-founded and ordered the first respondent to pay £2025. It also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered the first respondent to pay £1800 for 40 days accrued but untaken annual leave over the last two years of employment.
The claimant's unauthorised deductions from wages claim for a working from home allowance of £6 per week was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written judgment included a notice that interest may accrue if sums are not paid within 14 days, but it did not quantify any interest award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3037.50. | Upheld | — | £3,038 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint related to notice pay and was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £2,025 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for 40 days accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deductions claim concerned a working from home allowance of £6 per week and was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,863
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.