Case 3200461/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sophie Moffat v Linmar Care Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200461/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sophie Moffat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the respondent’s application to extend time for presenting the response and proceeded under Rule 21. It then found that Linmar Care Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Ms Sophie Moffat’s wages and had unfairly dismissed her.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,334.74 in total. That sum was made up of £490.35 for the unauthorised deductions claim and £1,844.39 for the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment records the unfair dismissal award as the total monetary award for that claim.
For recoupment purposes under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, the tribunal identified a prescribed element of £764.85 covering 24 December 2022 to 3 August 2023. The amount by which the total monetary award for unfair dismissal exceeded the prescribed element was £1,079.54.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £490 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that £1,844.39 was the total monetary award for unfair dismissal, with a prescribed element of £764.85 for the period 24 December 2022 to 3 August 2023 and an excess of £1,079.54. | Upheld | — | £1,844 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,335
- 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.