Case 2500119/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Edassery Valappil Achuthan v Signa Care Group Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500119/2025
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Edassery Valappil Achuthan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Newcastle (by CVP) before Employment Judge Childe on 9-11 March 2026, considered five complaints brought by Ms D Edassery Valappil Achuthan against Signa Care Group Ltd. The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded in respect of deductions on 19 October 2024, 26 October 2024 and 13 November 2024, and the respondent was ordered to pay the agreed gross sum of £284.85.
On the breach of contract claims, the respondent accepted that it had breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay for a day's induction training in November 2023 and by deducting £53 for a DBS check in December 2023; the parties agreed compensation of £78.15. A further breach of contract claim relating to pressure said to have been placed on the claimant in January 2024 to purchase a car costing £2,600 was found not well-founded and was dismissed. A claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was likewise found not well-founded and dismissed.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons would only be provided if requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions found for the periods 19 October 2024, 26 October 2024 and 13 November 2024. The £284.85 is the gross sum deducted and was agreed between the parties; claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £285 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent agreed it breached the contract by (a) failing to pay for a day's induction training in November 2023 and (b) deducting £53 for the cost of a DBS check in December 2023. Agreed compensation of £78.15. | Upheld | — | £78 |
| Breach of contract | Claim that the respondent breached the contract in January 2024 by pressuring the claimant to purchase a car costing £2,600 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £363
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.