Case 3300006/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Untalan v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300006/2024
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Untalan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 31 January 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. Awards were made of £1,650.00 gross for unauthorised deductions, £11,430 as a redundancy payment, and £762.00 for unpaid holiday.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £13,842.00 in total. The judgment was given by Employment Judge Graham, dated 23 December 2024, and sent to the parties on 25 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; £762.00 awarded. Classified as holiday_pay under the Working Time Regulations framing in the gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | £762 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination following failure of respondent to file a valid response in time. Award of £1,650.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,650 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,430. | Upheld | — | £11,430 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,842
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.