Case 2600934/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Richardson v Family Care Agency Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600934/2022
- Decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
- Venue
- Via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 22 July 2022 before Employment Judge Smith sitting alone, and with no attendance for the Respondent, the Tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for Miss J Richardson to present the claim within the ordinary statutory time limit and that the claim was brought within a further period the Tribunal considered reasonable. The Tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to determine the claim.
The Tribunal then declared that Family Care Agency Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of compensation for accrued but untaken annual leave properly payable to the Claimant on 3 December 2021. It found the claim well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £1,330 gross. The judgment records that the net amount payable was £1,228.78 after deduction of the appropriate National Insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal treated the claim as an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of compensation for accrued but untaken annual leave, properly payable on 3 December 2021. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,330, with a net amount of £1,228.78 after NI. | Upheld | — | £1,330 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,330
- 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.