Case 3310553/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Edwards v Home Angels Healthcare Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310553/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that she had been dismissed on 31 May 2023 after her work was taken away and she was removed from work-related systems. The tribunal found that, although the respondent's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract, the claimant had not been dismissed on that date and had not brought a constructive dismissal claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant was ready and willing to work from 29 May 2023 until 2 August 2023, but was prevented from doing so by the respondent's failure to pay her and by the removal of work. It therefore upheld the unauthorised deductions claim in part for 66 days' pay and applied a 25% uplift for failure to comply with the Acas Code.
The claims for notice pay and holiday pay were dismissed because the unfair dismissal claim was not upheld. The pension contribution claim was also dismissed because pension contributions were found not to be wages under the statutory definition.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had not been dismissed on 31 May 2023 as alleged, and the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded in part. The tribunal ordered payment equivalent to 66 days' pay, increased by 25% for failure to comply with the Acas Code, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for unpaid notice pay failed because the unfair dismissal claim was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid holiday pay failed because the unfair dismissal claim was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for unpaid pension contributions failed because the tribunal found pension contributions do not fall within the definition of wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd UKEAT/0028/16
- Feltham Management Ltd and others v Feltham and others EAT 0201/16
- New Century Cleaning Company Limited v Church [2000] IRLR 27
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and another [2018] EWCA Civ 204
- s.221(3) and (4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Somerset County Council v Chambers EAT 0417/12
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.