Case 3323258/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Titan Healthcare Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323258/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he was an employee of the respondent from 26 February 2019 to 20 October 2021, working 30 hours per week. Although the response alleged that he was casual or self-employed, the tribunal was satisfied that he devoted his working time to the respondent and worked under Ms Hutchinson's direction.
The tribunal found that the claimant received no remuneration from the respondent business and no paid holiday. It calculated unpaid National Minimum Wage using 4,640 hours at the prevailing rate of £8.91 per hour, producing an award of £41,342.40.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was entitled to two weeks' notice pay, awarded at £534.60, and 17 days' accrued but untaken annual leave, awarded at £908.81. The total award was £42,785.81, with recoupment provisions applying and a protected sum of £1,443.41.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant the National Minimum Wage and calculated the award under section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. | Upheld | — | £41,342 |
| Breach of contract | Award for two weeks' lost notice pay following dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £535 |
| Holiday pay | Award for accrued but untaken holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £909 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £42,786
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.