Case 3200933/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Packham v Comfort Care Partnership Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200933/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Packham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at East London Hearing Centre on 7 October 2019 before Employment Judge Russell under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Respondent did not attend. The judgment records that Mrs K Packham represented herself.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages. It ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,333.33 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant her notice pay. It ordered the Respondent to pay damages of £538.46 for that failure. In addition, it found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £376.92.
The judgment does not set out any separate award structure beyond those three sums. The total of the amounts ordered is £3,248.71.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,333 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the Respondent failed to pay notice pay and ordered damages of £538.46. | Upheld | — | £538 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £376.92. | Upheld | — | £377 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,249
- 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.