Case 2600645/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Amanda Godfree v Prestigious Care — 2021

Case reference: 2600645/2021
Decision date: 12 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ahmed Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Amanda Godfree

Respondent

Prestigious Care

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment. The Tribunal found that Prestigious Care had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs Amanda Godfree's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £3,200.00 net. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £598.50 net.

The Tribunal stated that it had no power to award sums for pension contributions, because they were not 'wages' within section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or for any tax owed in respect of the employer's tax liability. It also found that the claimant had not shown that bank charges or overdraft fees were caused directly by the unlawful deduction of wages, and dismissed that part of the claim. The total award recorded by the judgment is £3,798.50 net.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £3,200.00 net. It also said it had no power to award sums for pension contributions or tax owed in respect of the employer's tax liability because those were not 'wages' within section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	£3,200
Holiday pay	The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £598.50 net.	Upheld	—	£599
Other	The claimant did not show that bank charges or overdraft fees were a direct result of the unlawful deduction of wages, so that claim was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,799; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.