Case 4103692/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Walls v Lica Homecare Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103692/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Neilson
- Venue
- person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Walls
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Walls brought claims for unlawful deductions and holiday pay against Lica Homecare Limited. The Employment Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider either claim because the parties had entered into a settlement agreement.
The tribunal found that the settlement agreement complied with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 35 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. On that basis, both the unlawful deductions claim and the holiday pay claim were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record does not identify any monetary award, and no remedy was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because a settlement agreement had been entered into between the parties that complied with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because a settlement agreement had been entered into between the parties that complied with regulation 35 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 35 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.