Case 3315343/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Rayner v Pinford End Nursing Home and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315343/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs J Rayner
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined without a response.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, had dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, had dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy, and had failed to pay holiday entitlement. The sums awarded were £1,244.74 net for wages, £2,196.00 for notice damages, £3,294 for redundancy pay, and £183.00 for holiday entitlement.
The stated total appears in the extracted text as "£6.917.74", which is treated as £6,917.74 because it matches the sum of the itemised awards.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay this net sum. | Upheld | — | £1,245 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,196 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to this redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,294 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £183 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,918
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.