Case 3300125/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Meredith v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300125/2024
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Meredith
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 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 in breach of contract in respect of notice, 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.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,125.36 gross for unauthorised deductions, £1,500.48 in damages for breach of contract regarding notice, £2,625.84 as a redundancy payment, and £302.18 for unpaid holiday entitlement, totalling £5,553.86.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination; respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,626 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations; tribunal expressed the award as holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £302 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,554
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.