Case 2415426/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Rogers v Oak Tree Family Residential Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415426/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newstead Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Rogers brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract against Oak Tree Family Residential Limited. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had been aware of the hearing, had emailed the tribunal beforehand, and gave no further response. It therefore proceeded in the respondent's absence under Rule 47, and also treated the ET1's omission of the word "Limited" from the respondent's name as a minor error that did not justify rejection of the claim under Rule 12.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded in respect of £210 said to cover eight hours of mandatory training and 12 hours of work. The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid for the relevant training/work time and that £210 had been unlawfully deducted from wages. | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Breach of contract | Claim succeeded in respect of unpaid mileage. The tribunal found there was an oral agreement to pay 45 pence per mile and awarded £18.90 for 42 miles travelled. | Upheld | — | £19 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £229
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 12(1)(f) and Rule 12(2)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Bear Scotland v Fulton [2015] IRLR 15
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.