Case 2601777/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T McDermott-Shepherd v Salus Care Group Leicestershire Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601777/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T McDermott-Shepherd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Clark stated that a determination could properly be made on the papers. The tribunal therefore dealt with the claim without a contested hearing, and the listed hearing on 19 November 2021 was cancelled.
The tribunal upheld all three claims. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £549.12 gross. It also upheld the claim for breach of contract in respect of unpaid expenses and awarded £200 in damages. Separately, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £44.10. The total payable was £793.22.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £549.12 gross. | Upheld | — | £549 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the breach of contract claim was in respect of unpaid expenses and awarded £200 damages. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £44.10. | Upheld | — | £44 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £793
- 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.