Case 3200127/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Peerbux v Oak Lodge Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200127/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Byrne Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Peerbux
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJudgment in favour of the claimant had been made on 22 June 2022. At the remedy hearing on 8 July 2022 before Employment Judge Byrne, with the respondent neither present nor represented, the tribunal determined the sums due in respect of the claimant's claims.
The tribunal allowed underpayments for 30 June 2021 and 31 July 2021, including shortfalls in ordinary pay, an annual leave shortfall, a DBS check charge, and shortfalls in statutory sick pay for 30 September 2021 and 31 October 2021. It calculated a total underpayment of £818.08.
The tribunal deducted later payments received by the claimant totalling £153.96, producing a net loss of earnings of £664.12. It then applied a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code, adding £166.03, and ordered the respondent to pay a grand total of £830.15 forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not state a separate legal label for this head; this entry captures the pay shortfalls, DBS check charge deduction, and SSP shortfall/unpaid SSP items in the remedy schedule. The award was not split per claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | This entry captures the annual leave shortfall shown in the remedy schedule. The award was not split per claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £830
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £664
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ACAS Code uplift
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.