Case 3205718/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Louis Tancrel v T-Bot Care Dynamics Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3205718/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Louis Tancrel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge G. King, sitting alone at East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 23 and 24 May 2024, found that the Claimant Louis Tancrel's claims of breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages against T-Bot Care Dynamics Limited were well founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £3,766.12 in respect of deductions made in breach of contract, £1,475.20 in respect of unpaid overtime, and £80.00 in respect of unlawful deductions relating to insurance, producing a total award of £5,321.32. The judgment records that the sums in respect of the breach of contract deductions and the unpaid overtime are subject to tax and National Insurance deductions.
The judgment text available does not set out detailed reasoning, legal tests, or factual findings beyond the operative orders, so the precis above is limited to what the judgment itself records.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Award of £3,766.12 in respect of deductions made in breach of contract. Sum subject to tax and National Insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £3,766 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Comprises £1,475.20 in respect of unpaid overtime (subject to tax and NI) and £80.00 in respect of unlawful deductions relating to insurance. Combined here because the judgment lists both as unlawful deduction components. | Upheld | — | £1,555 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,321
- 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.