Case 6007568/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms April Tipactipac v IANS Domiciliary Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007568/2024
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
- Venue
- Watford via video
Parties
2 namedMs April Tipactipac
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge MJ Smith heard this matter at Watford via video on 6 October 2025. The claimant Ms April Tipactipac appeared in person; the respondent (IANS Domiciliary Care Limited) did not attend and the tribunal proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The claimant was employed as a Home Care Assistant from 17 July 2023 to 16 February 2024.
On the time limit point, the Judge found, applying Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd and Cullinane v Balfour Beatty, that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant (a foreign national whose work visa was in jeopardy following termination) to have presented her claim in time, and that she had presented it within a further reasonable period after securing employment and engaging with ACAS.
The Judge found three claims well-founded: unauthorised deduction of wages of £1,724.22 gross for unexplained monthly deductions from October 2023 to February 2024; holiday pay of £931.66 gross for 14 days of accrued untaken pro rata leave; and breach of contract for failure to pay full contractual salary (no separate remedy awarded). The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract regarding the claimant's notice period was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £1,724 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £932 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,656
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.