Case 3315307/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I CRISAN v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315307/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I CRISAN
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Graham determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
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 £3,600 gross for wages, £4,800 for notice damages, £4,501 as a redundancy payment, and £1,460 for holiday entitlement, totalling £14,361.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment recorded unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £3,600 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £4,800 |
| Redundancy | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £4,501 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,460 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,361
- 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.