Case 2407769/2023 · Employment Tribunal
P Jarvis E Matthews J Gudgeon A Bowman v Ashcroft Homecare Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407769/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P Jarvis E Matthews J Gudgeon A Bowman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRegional Employment Judge Franey made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (default judgment) in linked claims by P Jarvis, E Matthews, J Gudgeon and A Bowman against Ashcroft Homecare Limited following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time.
This judgment relates specifically to case 2407769/2023, Mr P Jarvis. The Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages of £1,226.25 gross, dismissal in breach of contract attracting damages of £1,334.05 for notice, and unpaid holiday entitlement of £1,334.05.
The respondent was ordered to pay Mr Jarvis £3,894.35 in total. Notice of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was given.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (gross sum). | Upheld | — | £1,226 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,334 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,334 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,894
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.