Case 2407172/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Musasa v Care Connect Cheshire Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407172/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Musasa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Musasa worked as a care assistant for Care Connect Cheshire Ltd from 11 September 2023 to 26 July 2024. Her unlawful deduction claim covered four main matters: bank holiday pay, sponsorship-related deductions, deductions under a car purchase agreement, and alleged underpayment for travel time between appointments. The tribunal found that the April 2024 bank holiday addition of £1.58 per hour brought the day-shift rate up to £13.65, which it accepted was the correct rate for bank holiday hours under the contract, and it therefore rejected any underpayment on that basis.
The tribunal found that the initial terms of employment allowed deductions for costs associated with employment, including the certificate of sponsorship, visa and related charges, and that the claimant had signed both the initial terms and a deductions from pay agreement. It also found that the car purchase agreement, signed on 15 September 2023, authorised monthly deductions and permitted deduction of any outstanding balance from final wages if employment ended before the purchase price had been repaid. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had been told she needed to purchase a car for the role, and it held that the deductions made towards the car and the final balance were not unlawful.
On travel time, the tribunal found that the claimant worked split shifts amounting to 10 hours each day and that travel between appointments was incorporated into that working day. It accepted that the claimant was paid for that time and concluded that there had been no unlawful deduction from wages. As to holiday pay, the tribunal found that the holiday year ran from 1 July to 30 June, that the claimant had accrued 19 days by 28 June 2024, but that the contract did not provide for carry-over. It further found that by the time her employment ended on 26 July 2024 she had taken annual leave between 24 and 26 July, so there was no unpaid accrued leave due on termination.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint covered alleged underpayment for bank holiday hours, sponsorship-related deductions, car purchase deductions, and travel time. The tribunal found the bank holiday rate was correctly paid, the sponsorship and car deductions were authorised by signed terms, and travel time was incorporated into the paid working day. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that 19 days annual leave had accrued by 28 June 2024, but found the contract did not allow carry-over and that, by termination on 26 July 2024, the claimant had taken annual leave between 24 and 26 July 2024 so there was no unpaid balance due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Stringer and ors v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund 2009 ICR 932
- Keen v Commerzbank AG 2007 ICR 623
- Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis 2016 AC 1172
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.