Case 3315355/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Vega v Pinford End Nursing Home — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315355/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Vega
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 31 January 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.
The tribunal found that the respondent had 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 the claimant's holiday entitlement.
The respondent was ordered to pay £987.80 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, £1,250.40 for notice-related breach of contract damages, £7,502.40 as a redundancy payment, and £1,875.60 for holiday entitlement, making £11,616.20 in total.
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 £987.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £988 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £1,250.40 damages. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,502.40. | Upheld | — | £7,502 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £1,875.60. | Upheld | — | £1,876 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,616
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 - Rule 22
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.