Case 3324201/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J North v Back to Back Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3324201/2019
- Decision date
- 18 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J North
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford, by video, on 18 March 2022, Employment Judge Quill sat alone and recorded that the claimant's weekly gross pay was £502. The respondent did not appear or have representation.
The tribunal upheld two claims for unauthorised deductions from July 2019 salary. It found that £310 had been deducted because the respondent paid for 190 hours rather than 221, and that a further £174.06 had been deducted for late submission of a timesheet. The respondent was ordered to pay both gross sums.
The claimant also succeeded on holiday pay. The judgment records entitlement to £862.21 for unused holiday, calculated as £502 x 5.6 x 112/365. The written reasons note that £854.89 had been announced orally, but that £862.61 would be correct for 112 days, although the operative written order states £862.21.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for losses said to have arisen from late notification of earnings to HMRC and/or DWP, and it dismissed the claim for an unauthorised deduction for employee pension contributions. In addition, the tribunal awarded £1,004, being two weeks' pay, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent paid for 190 hours rather than 221 in July 2019 salary, resulting in an unauthorised deduction of £310. | Upheld | — | £310 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deduction was said to be for late submission of a timesheet. | Upheld | — | £174 |
| Holiday pay | The written judgment orders £862.21 for unused holiday entitlement; the note says the oral figure of £854.89 was based on 111 days and that £862.61 is correct for 112 days. | Upheld | — | £862 |
| Other | Claim for losses allegedly caused by late notification of earnings to HMRC and/or DWP. The judgment does not give a specific statutory label for this head of loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for an unauthorised deduction for employee pension contributions failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,350
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.