Case 3334374/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rangarira v And PB Moinville Care Limited Held by CVP on 17 August 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 3334374/2018
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rangarira
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Kurrein recorded, in a remote hearing on 17 August 2021, that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Rangarira's pay. On Claim 1, the tribunal ordered the respondent to compensate her in the sum of £550.00.
The judgment also dealt with the respondent's counterclaim. The tribunal found that Miss Rangarira had been in breach of contract by making an excessive mileage claim of £82.60 and by retaining her uniform jacket, which was valued at £10. She was ordered to compensate the respondent in those sums.
The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The note of decision was sent to the parties and entered in the register on 20 September 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's pay and ordered it to compensate her £550.00. | Upheld | — | £550 |
| Breach of contract | On the respondent's counterclaim, the tribunal found that the claimant had made an excessive mileage claim of £82.60 and retained her uniform jacket valued at £10, and ordered her to compensate the respondent in those sums. | Upheld | — | £93 |
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.