Case 3315255/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Smith v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315255/2023
- Decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined without a response.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy, and failed to pay holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £6,412 in total, made up of £624 wages, £692 notice damages, £4,680 redundancy payment, and £416 holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £624 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £692 |
| Redundancy | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £4,680 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £416 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,412
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.