Case 3303490/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Rzepska v Chalk Hills Healthcare (in creditors voluntary arrangement) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303490/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Rzepska
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal on 26 March 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend. Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure following a hearing at Reading on 27 March 2025.
The Judge found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £1,091.20 as damages, calculated on gross pay to reflect likely tax on Post Employment Notice Pay. A further complaint of breach of contract for failure to provide 60 hours of work during the claimant's employment was also well-founded, with damages of £818.40 awarded on the same gross-pay basis.
The complaint in respect of holiday pay was well-founded: the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for 28 hours of holiday taken during her employment, and was ordered to pay £381.92, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay: damages for breach of contract calculated using gross pay to reflect likely tax on Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £1,091 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide 60 hours of work during the claimant's employment; damages calculated using gross pay. | Upheld | — | £818 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant in accordance with regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for 28 hours of holiday taken during employment. Claimant responsible for any tax or NI. | Upheld | — | £382 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,291
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.