Case 2601038/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Paige Chantry v Arnold Home Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601038/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Paige Chantry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 June 2022 Employment Judge Millns Date entered a Rule 21 judgment for Miss Paige Chantry against Arnold Home Care Limited in case numbers 2601038/2022 and 2601063/2022. The order states that the claim succeeds and directs that remedy will be determined at a Remedy Hearing on 2-3 November 2022.
The extracted page does not set out the facts, liability reasoning, or any separate findings on the individual heads of claim. The GOV.UK listing for the combined case identifies breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, working time, and written pay statement issues, but no monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The one-page Rule 21 judgment records only that the claim succeeds; it does not separate liability or remedy by head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The one-page Rule 21 judgment records only that the claim succeeds; it does not separate liability or remedy by head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The one-page Rule 21 judgment records only that the claim succeeds; it does not separate liability or remedy by head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Used for the written pay statement issue identified in the case listing; the extracted judgment does not isolate this head. | Upheld | — | — |
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.