Case 2602471/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Samuels v Inmind Children’s Service Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602471/2019
- Decision date
- 25 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Samuels
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment given by Employment Judge Adkinson on 25 August 2020. The respondent did not present a defence, and the tribunal entered judgment on the claims disclosed in the order.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered it to pay £4,160.01. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered damages of £856.80.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £593.92. The judgment does not set out any separate award structure beyond those three sums, and no discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other remedy findings are recorded in the extracted text.
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 the gross/net sum of £4,160.01. | Upheld | — | £4,160 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £856.80. | Upheld | — | £857 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £593.92. | Upheld | — | £594 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,611
- 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.