Case 2503729/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lisa J Geddes v Amna Care Domiciliary Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503729/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lisa J Geddes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Lisa J Geddes’s claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded. It ordered Amna Care Domiciliary Limited to pay her £1,438.64 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found the claimant’s holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £793.50 gross for holiday pay.
The judgment recorded a total award of £2,232.14 and stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the section 13 ERA 1996 claim for unauthorised deduction of wages well-founded and ordered payment of £1,438.64 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,439 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 well-founded and ordered payment of £793.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £794 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,232
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 13 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.