Case 3302053/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Fovargue v Cambridge Care Company Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302053/2025
- Decision date
- 10 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Fovargue
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted the respondent's application to extend time for presentation of the ET3, extending time to 19 June 2025, the date on which the ET3 was presented.
The Tribunal found the claimant's unpaid holiday pay complaint well-founded, holding that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for four days' holiday accrued but untaken when employment ended. It also found the unauthorised deductions complaint well-founded for the period 16 December 2024 to 3 January 2025 inclusive, stated as 15 days' pay.
The Tribunal did not determine remedy in this judgment and listed remedy for a hearing on 29 and 30 April 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The complaint in respect of unpaid holiday pay was found well-founded. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found well-founded for the period 16 December 2024 to 3 January 2025 inclusive. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.