Case 3300658/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms W Chapple v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300658/2024
- Decision date
- 18 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms W Chapple
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 18 January 2024 in the South East Region of the Employment Tribunal. The respondent, Pinford End Nursing Home (in creditors' voluntary liquidation), failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made on the claim or part of it.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay £966.40 net. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £125.04. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,091.44 in total. The judgment was approved by Regional Employment Judge Foxwell.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £966.40 net. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £966 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £125.04. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,091
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.