Case 3305676/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Grindey v Care Mithra — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305676/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Grindey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Region Employment Tribunal on 5 June 2024. The Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Care Mithra Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages. The Respondent was ordered to pay Miss E Grindey £2,483.76 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement. The Respondent was ordered to pay a further £343.85. The judgment does not separately break down any wider remedy beyond those two sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £2,483.76 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,484 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £343.85. | Upheld | — | £344 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,828
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.