Case 3300007/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Hunt v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300007/2024
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Hunt
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 on time, and Employment Judge Graham decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy, and failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The judgment ordered payment of the specified sums for each head of claim, totalling £15,052.05.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that unauthorised deductions were made from wages and awards this gross sum. | Upheld | — | £1,158 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages in this sum. | Upheld | — | £3,088 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to this redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £10,421 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awards this sum. | Upheld | — | £386 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,052
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.