Case 2403612/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Houlihan v Hometrust Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403612/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Houlihan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was decided on the papers under Rule 21 because Hometrust Care Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Cookson recorded that a determination could properly be made in accordance with rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the hearing listed for 5 October 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered Hometrust Care Ltd to pay Miss E Houlihan the net sum of £1,485.20, and stated that the respondent was responsible for any tax deductible to HMRC.
The written record also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated the relevant decision day as 3 October 2022, the calculation day as 4 October 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum, but it did not quantify any interest sum in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £1,485 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,485
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.