Case 6006273/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rachel Woodward (née Emerson) v Park View Day Nursery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006273/2025
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rachel Woodward (née Emerson)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Humble, sitting alone in a remote CVP hearing at which the respondent did not attend, found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent had made multiple unauthorised deductions from her wages, failed to pay accrued holiday entitlement on termination, and was in breach of contract for failing to reimburse expenses.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,120.11 for unfair dismissal (basic award £1,307.69; compensatory award £812.42), £3,901.83 for shortfalls in pay between 1 November 2024 and 2 January 2025, £1,480 for pension contributions deducted from pay but not contributed to a pension scheme between 1 May 2024 and 2 January 2025, £1,569.23 for 12 days of accrued holiday pay, and £700 for unreimbursed expenses. The total award is £9,771.17. The Recoupment Regulations do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £1,307.69 + compensatory award £812.42. Recoupment Regulations do not apply. | Upheld | — | £2,120 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Two heads: shortfalls in pay 1 Nov 2024 - 2 Jan 2025 (£3,901.83); pension contributions deducted but not paid 1 May 2024 - 2 Jan 2025 at £185/month (£1,480). | Upheld | — | £5,382 |
| Holiday pay | 12 days accrued holiday pay on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,569 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to reimburse expenses incurred on the respondent's behalf. | Upheld | — | £700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,771
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,308
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £812
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.