Case 3201674/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Naluyima v Inclusive Care Support Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201674/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Naluyima
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss H Naluyima brought a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 against Inclusive Care Support Limited. Employment Judge Ross heard oral evidence from the claimant and considered the payroll bundle, including payslips at pages 54 to 57.
The claimant accepted in evidence that she had been paid all the sums shown on the payslips and that she had been paid all that she had been entitled to be paid for work for the respondent. She said she had checked the payslip amounts against bank statements during the hearing. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s concern was that the respondent had reported her to HMRC on the basis that she was still earning money on 30 May 2019, but it was common ground that she had ceased work for the respondent on or about 15 March 2019.
The tribunal found that HMRC appears to have misunderstood the position because the final payslip was dated 31 May 2019, but the work recorded on that payslip related to work done earlier, including in January and February 2019. For those reasons, the tribunal held that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not upheld and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal said it was not upheld and dismissed the claim. | 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.
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.