Case 6003626/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Cavendish Homecare Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003626/2025
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms L Scott, brought a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against Cavendish Homecare Ltd. The case was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal by CVP on 22 April 2025 before Employment Judge Martin, with no attendance or representation for the claimant and Ms C Williams appearing for the respondent.
The tribunal’s judgment records that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded to the extent of £2.00. No further findings, legal analysis, or split of the award are given in the extracted judgment text.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2.00. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the parties were told they could apply for written reasons within 14 days of the date of judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded to the extent of £2.00. | Upheld | — | £2 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.