Ms L Tsang v Ms J Ainley — 2025

The claimant sought work as an after-school nanny through Koru Kids and agreed with the respondent in April 2024 that she would start on 3 May 2024. The first day was treated as an induction day, during which the respondent and her partner showed the claimant the school route, gave her keys, explained what was expected, and the claimant spent time with the respondent's daughter.

The respondent accepted that the claimant attended on 3 May 2024 but argued that she was only a guest and had not done work under the contract. The tribunal rejected that submission. It found that the induction amounted to work for the respondent, relying in particular on Koru Kids messages from 29 April 2024 in which the respondent asked the claimant to "start on Friday".

There was a dispute about duration. The claimant consistently said she worked three hours, and the respondent's response form also referred to approximately three hours at the house on 3 May 2024, although her later correspondence suggested only 1 to 2 hours. On the balance of the evidence, the tribunal preferred the three-hour figure, noting that the respondent was not حاضر to explain the change in position.

The tribunal held that the respondent's failure to pay £39 gross for three hours on 3 May 2024 was an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £39. The claimant said she suffered stress but no financial loss beyond the unpaid wages, and the judgment did not make any separate compensatory award.