Case 3205112/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I M de Araújo Ramos Fernandes v Eden Brook Home Care Limited Heard: East London Hearing Centre (remotely by CVP) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205112/2022
- Decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I M de Araújo Ramos Fernandes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs I M de Araújo Ramos Fernandes worked as a Care Assistant for Eden Brook Home Care Limited from 20 February 2022 to 13 June 2022. The tribunal heard claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and breach of contract in respect of travelling expenses. The central factual dispute concerned a WhatsApp exchange on 13 June 2022 and whether the claimant had resigned immediately or was still entitled to continue working and be paid for the balance of notice and expenses.
The tribunal found that the Birdie system recorded the claimant as having used forced login throughout her employment and that there had been a dispute about that practice on the morning of 13 June 2022. It accepted the respondent's own figure that the claimant had been underpaid by £789.97, but rejected any larger claim. The tribunal said there was no legal provision permitting the respondent to set off alleged losses from historical forced logins against wages already underpaid, and it found the claimant had not proved any further deduction claim because her case depended on suppositions such as an alleged Birdie malfunction.
On notice pay, the tribunal found the claimant's message at 11:39 on 13 June 2022, saying she did not work for the respondent anymore from that day, was clear and unequivocal. It found the respondent acted reasonably in treating that message as an immediate resignation, and held that the claimant had been paid for the period she actually worked. The notice pay claim therefore failed, and the tribunal recorded that no further notice pay was due.
The travelling expenses claim also failed. The tribunal found the claimant had not proved that she was owed travel expenses and considered it reasonable for the respondent to rely on Birdie software to calculate mileage. The only monetary award was £789.97 gross for the successful unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that wages paid between 20 February 2022 and 13 June 2022 were short by £789.97 and awarded that sum gross, without deduction of income tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £790 |
| Breach of contract | This was the notice pay claim. The tribunal found the claimant resigned with immediate effect on 13 June 2022 and therefore waived any right to the balance of notice pay. The judgment states at para 25.6 that the contract required 4 weeks' notice, but at para 41 it records the notice period as 12 weeks. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the travelling expenses claim. The tribunal found the claimant had not proved further underpayment and accepted that it was reasonable for the respondent to rely on the Birdie software to calculate mileage. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £790
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- balance of probabilities
- she who alleges must prove
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.