Case 3201126/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Debbie Kimmings v Home Sweet Home Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201126/2019
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Debbie Kimmings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt East London Hearing Centre on 29 August 2019, Employment Judge Hallen heard Ms Debbie Kimmings' claim against Home Sweet Home Care Limited. The respondent did not attend and no response was entered. The tribunal held that Ms Kimmings had been automatically unfairly constructively dismissed contrary to s.100(1)(c) and s.101A Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal awarded separate sums of £1,308.83 for loss of wages, £183.24 for holiday pay, and £261.77 for payment in lieu. It also awarded £3,272.10 for unfair dismissal and £1,308.83 for failure to provide written particulars of employment contrary to s.1 ERA 1996, making a total award of £6,334.77.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as 'loss of wages'. | Upheld | — | £1,309 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded separately as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £183 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as 'payment in lieu'. | Upheld | — | £262 |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found Ms Kimmings had been automatically unfairly constructively dismissed contrary to s.100(1)(c) and s.101A ERA 1996 and awarded £3,272.10 labelled 'compensation for unfair dismissal'. | Upheld | — | £3,272 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment contrary to s.1 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,309 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,335
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,272
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.101A ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
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.