Case 3200207/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Akther v Rhythmic Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200207/2019
- Decision date
- 13 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs K Freeman, Dr J Ukemenam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Akther
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs B Akther’s claims against Rhythmic Care Limited were heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 11 and 12 March 2019 before Employment Judge Burgher, with Mrs K Freeman and Dr J Ukemenam sitting as members. The written judgment states that all of the claimant’s claims failed and were dismissed.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been paid for 7 days annual leave for the holiday year 1 March 2018 to February 2019. On that basis, it rejected the claim for unlawful deduction of wages in respect of unpaid holiday for 28 July 2018 to 11 August 2018.
The note to the judgment states that the claimant had accrued 37 days holiday pay for the period 1 March 2019 to 1 November 2019, which was outstanding when she was required to return to work from maternity leave. The formal decision nevertheless remained that the claims were dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned unpaid holiday/annual leave. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was paid for 7 days annual leave for the holiday year 1 March 2018 to February 2019, and that the claim for unpaid holiday for 28 July 2018 to 11 August 2018 failed. The note to the judgment also records that 37 days holiday pay had accrued for 1 March 2019 to 1 November 2019 and was outstanding when she was required to return from maternity leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.