Case 3314967/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Phillimon Makekera, Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314967/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloom Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Sara Smith, brought a claim for arrears of wages against Bucks Healthcare Services Limited. The respondent accepted that she was owed salary for November 2020 and the first three days of December 2020, but the tribunal had to decide whether she also worked between 4 December 2020 and 15 December 2020.
Employment Judge Bloom preferred the claimant's evidence. The tribunal accepted her account of the work she did during that period and relied on a chain of WhatsApp messages between the claimant and Mr Phillimon Makekera, which the judge found confirmed that she undertook duties and complied with his instructions. The judge therefore concluded that she worked for the respondent up to the date her tribunal claim was presented.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was owed 11 days' pay for work between 1 and 14 December 2020 inclusive, in addition to salary for November 2020. The judgment recorded that £1,750.00 was due for November 2020 and £871.64 for December 2020, making a total of £2,621.64.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,621.64 in respect of arrears of wages, subject to deductions for income tax and National Insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of arrears of wages totalling £2,621.64, comprising £1,750.00 for November 2020 and £871.64 for 1 to 14 December 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,622 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,622
- 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.