Case 2502114/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms, Dawson ( of counsel) For the respondent No attendance ( v Oasis Private Care Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2502114/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Parties
2 namedMs, Dawson ( of counsel) For the respondent No attendance (
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHearing in Newcastle upon Tyne with the claimant represented by counsel and the respondent failing to attend (Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 applied). The Employment Judge upheld three claims and made a section 12 ERA 1996 declaration setting out the written particulars that should have been given to the claimant, attached as a schedule.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was upheld in the gross sum of £18,762.03. The holiday pay claim was upheld in the sum of £769.93 (regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998). The failure to provide written statement of employment particulars claim under s.38 Employment Act 2002 was upheld; the tribunal found there were no exceptional circumstances making a 2-week award unjust or inequitable, and that it was just and equitable to make the higher 4 weeks' gross pay award of £1,856.40.
The schedule of particulars confirmed the claimant was a Care Worker employed from 15 August 2023 at £10.75 per hour / £419.25 per week / £21,801 per year, on a minimum 39-hour week with a 5-year fixed term and a 6-month probationary period. Combined awards total £21,388.36 (gross).
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £18,762 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £770 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £1,856 |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,388
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.