Case 2600525/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Exceptional Home Care T/a WeCare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600525/2023
- Decision date
- 8 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Bowyer
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not attend and failed to present a response. It found that Miss L Marshall had been treated unfavourably because of her pregnancy and maternity leave. For that discrimination claim, the tribunal awarded £11,200 for injury to feelings.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages from the claimant and had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay. It ordered gross payments of £1,666.94 for unlawful deductions and £687.83 for holiday pay, both subject to the usual payroll deductions.
The judgment recorded £11,200 payable directly in full and a further £2,354.77 payable subject to payroll deductions. Taken together, the awards totalled £13,554.77, with the deductions applying only to the wage and holiday pay elements.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably because of her pregnancy and maternity leave and awarded injury to feelings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £11,200 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross amount ordered, subject to the usual payroll deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,667 |
| Holiday pay | Gross amount for accrued but untaken holiday pay, subject to the usual payroll deductions. | Upheld | — | £688 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,555
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,355
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.