Case 2404935/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Rosemount Care Home Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404935/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, heard the case on 28 September 2023. It found that Ms Samantha Lyons had been subject to unauthorised deductions from statutory sick pay from 1 May 2022 until 14 August 2022. The tribunal therefore upheld the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and ordered Rosemount Care Home Limited to pay £1,096.25 forthwith. The amount was described as a gross payment, with tax and employee national insurance contributions to be paid over by the claimant if due.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by the respondent on 14 August 2022 by reason of redundancy. It held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £684, calculated by reference to two weeks at £342 gross weekly wage, using 36 hours per week at £9.50 per hour. The total sum due to the claimant was recorded as £1,780.25, payable forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from statutory sick pay between 1 May 2022 and 14 August 2022. The award was stated to be a gross payment, with tax and employee national insurance to be accounted for by the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,096 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 14 August 2022 and was entitled to a redundancy payment calculated as 2 x £342 gross weekly wage, based on 36 hours per week at £9.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £684 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,780
- 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.