Case 2415634/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Ablus-Charles v Medincharm Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415634/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Ablus-Charles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages arising from an alleged failure to increase the claimant's pay when she accepted the responsibilities of Acting Home Manager. Following a preliminary hearing on 17 March 2021, the Tribunal issued a case management order giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why that complaint should not be struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unlawful deduction from wages complaint. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim or claims stayed listed for hearing on 31 May to 2 June 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned an alleged failure to increase pay when the claimant accepted the responsibilities of Acting Home Manager. It was struck out after the claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's case management order. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.