Case 3305377/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Kilby v Hamberley Care (Wixams) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305377/2023
- Decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGregor By
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Kilby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name from Elston Manor Care Home to Hamberley Care (Wixams) Ltd. It then upheld the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from basic pay in the period 2 December 2022 to 2 January 2023.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s complaint of failure to pay holiday pay under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, finding that accrued but untaken holiday remained payable for the same period. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £247.42 gross by 24 January 2023, as stated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found an unlawful deduction from basic pay in relation to the period 2 December 2022 to 2 January 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint under reg. 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the tribunal found holiday pay was due for accrued, untaken holiday between 2 December 2022 and 2 January 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £247
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reg. 30(1)(b) 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.