Case 2406107/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C L Allen v Goyt Valley Carers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406107/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R. Lloyd
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C L Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C L Allen worked for Goyt Valley Carers Ltd from 4 January 2021 until 1 July 2022. The hearing concerned three agreed issues: whether £57.75 could be deducted for unaccrued annual leave, whether visit pay had been correctly paid, and whether the respondent was entitled to recover a £500 retention bonus from the claimant's final wages.
After the respondent's explanation at the hearing, the claimant accepted that she had taken leave she had not accrued and that she had been paid correctly for visit pay. The tribunal therefore recorded those two parts of the claim as withdrawn and dismissed.
The remaining issue was the £500 bonus. The tribunal found that the respondent had offered a retention bonus of up to £500 on 1 March 2022, that the claimant accepted the payment terms in writing, and that she received the bonus in March 2022. The tribunal held that the repayment term was not a penalty clause because it was not triggered by breach of contract; the claimant had given the required notice when she left on 1 July 2022.
The deduction nevertheless failed under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Clause 7 of the claimant's contract allowed deductions for overpayments only, and the tribunal found that the bonus was not an overpayment. There was no contractual term or written agreement authorising recovery of the bonus by deduction from salary, so the £500 taken from the final pay slip was an unlawful deduction from wages. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £500.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant accepted at the hearing that she had taken leave she had not accrued. The tribunal recorded this part of the claim as withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant accepted that she had been paid correctly for visit pay. The tribunal recorded this part of the claim as withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully deducted the £500 bonus from the claimant's final pay. The repayment term was found not to be a penalty clause, but clause 7 did not authorise deduction because the bonus was not an overpayment and there was no written agreement authorising deduction from salary. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- penalty clause rule
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.