Case 2600356/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Davies v Orchid House Care Home Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600356/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Fredericks sat at Nottingham via CVP on 31 May 2022. The claimant, Mrs J Davies, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by its director, Mrs J Smith-Evans.
The tribunal found that Orchid House Care Home Limited made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages in December 2021. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross amount of £178.20 for that deduction.
The tribunal also found that the respondent did not provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. For that failure, it ordered the respondent to pay two weeks' wages in the amount of £356.40.
The total gross amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £534.60. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in December 2021 and ordered payment of the gross amount. | Upheld | — | £178 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent did not provide a written statement of employment particulars and ordered payment of two weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £356 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £535
- 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.