Case 2409420/2023 · Employment Tribunal
L Knapman v Tecura Healthcare Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409420/2023
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Knapman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge KM Ross in which the tribunal ordered Tecura Healthcare Group Limited to pay L Knapman for two monetary claims. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of a gross sum of £2,953.84. The judgment states that this sum included the claimant's entitlement to 1 week's pay in lieu of notice.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £743.97. The total sum payable within 14 days of the judgment was £3,697.81. The judgment records that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising if the gross award was paid without tax being deducted.
The attached interest notice recorded that, if the sums were not paid within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties on 27 February 2024, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate of 8% from 28 February 2024. The hearing listed for 8 March 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the gross sum awarded includes the claimant's entitlement to 1 week's pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,954 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £744 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,698
- 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.