Case 2502362/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Lee v Healthcare Recruitment UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502362/2023
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found that Healthcare Recruitment UK Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs V Lee's wages and ordered payment of £1,172.25 gross. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had produced her contract, which appeared to allow pay to vary depending on results, but held that she had not shown entitlement to the enhanced rate because, at the relevant time, the National Minimum Wage of £10.42 was higher.
The award was calculated as 3 weeks x 5 days x 7.5 hours at £10.42, totalling £1,172.25. The tribunal also noted that those were the particulars which should have been included on an itemised pay statement under s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996, and found that the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements. It made no further order under s.12 Employment Rights Act 1996 because it had not been shown that any unnotified deductions were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,172.25 gross, calculated by reference to the 2023-2024 National Minimum Wage of £10.42 for 3 weeks x 5 days x 7.5 hours. The tribunal also recorded that itemised pay statements should have contained those particulars and that no further order was made under s.12 ERA 1996 because no unnotified deductions were shown. | Upheld | — | £1,172 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,172
- 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.