Case 6000505/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs O Awonuga v Direct Link Care Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000505/2025
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs O Awonuga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Employment Tribunal on 6 January 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Anstis determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay her £6,632.00 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of a further £1,227.00.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Anstis and sent to the parties on 23 February 2026. No breach of contract claim was separately adjudicated on the face of the judgment text provided, and no working time claim beyond holiday pay was separately determined.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,632.00 gross. Determined under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £6,632 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,227.00. Determined under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,227 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,859
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.