Case 3206772/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Harry v Sozo Care Homes Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206772/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Harry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by telephone at East London Hearing Centre on 23 May 2022 before Employment Judge Gardiner. The claimant, Miss E Harry, represented herself and the respondent, Sozo Care Homes Limited, was represented by its director, Mr Y Frimpong.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unpaid notice pay was well founded. It awarded her one week’s gross salary, assessed at £538.46 gross.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims for unauthorised deduction of wages and for failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay, finding that neither claim was well founded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid notice pay well founded and awarded one week’s gross salary. | Upheld | — | £538 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unauthorised deduction of wages was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £538
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.