Case 6006495/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Laura-Jane Chogugudza v UK Phoenix Healthcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6006495/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Laura-Jane Chogugudza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a default judgment issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, following the respondent's failure to present a Response within the relevant time limit. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and had failed to pay her holiday entitlement, ordering gross sums of £5,000.01 and £833.32 respectively.
A further claim for interest on a loan was dismissed on the basis that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it as part of a wages claim. The total sum payable by the respondent to the claimant was £5,833.33, subject to deductions for income tax and National Insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. Gross sum of £5000.01 awarded for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 default judgment. Gross sum of £833.32 awarded for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £833 |
| Other | Claim for interest on a loan dismissed; tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to consider it as part of a wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,833
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.