Case 2600111/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Pinney-Smith v Purecare Today Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600111/2020
- Decision date
- 9 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Pinney-Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Miss A Pinney-Smith against Purecare Today Limited on three monetary claims. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,700.00.
It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,700.00. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,098.46.
The remaining claims were not determined on their merits. The claim for redundancy pay was dismissed on withdrawal, and the unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed on withdrawal. The hearing listed for 17 April 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,700 |
| Breach of contract | The claim concerned notice pay and was upheld; the tribunal ordered damages in the net sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,700 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,098 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,498
- 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.