Case 2408619/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Huggon v Artemis Domiciliary Care Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408619/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Huggon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool by CVP on 16 March 2023 before Employment Judge Parkin. The claimant, Miss A Huggon, appeared in person. The respondent, Artemis Domiciliary Care Ltd (In Liquidation), did not attend or present a response.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim and found that the respondent had made deductions totalling £311.60 gross. That sum was made up of £110 for 11 hours’ wages at £10 per hour and £201.60 mileage allowance calculated at 45p per mile for 448 miles.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s Working Time Regulations claim and ordered the respondent to pay £594.60 gross under regulation 14 for accrued paid annual leave untaken at the date of termination. The written record also included the standard interest notice, stating that interest would accrue if sums remained unpaid after 14 days and that the stipulated rate was 8% per annum from 21 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages totalling £311.60 gross, comprising £110 for 11 hours at £10 per hour and £201.60 mileage allowance for 448 miles at 45p per mile. | Upheld | — | £312 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal awarded £594.60 gross under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for accrued paid annual leave untaken at the date of termination. | Upheld | — | £595 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £906
- 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.