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 namedClaimant
Ms April Tipactipac
Respondent
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 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpayment of contractual wages October 2023 to February 2024. Time limit issue resolved in claimant's favour (not reasonably practicable). PDF text truncated from 17,335 to 15,000 chars. | Upheld | — | £1,724 |
| Holiday pay | 14 days pro rata accrued but untaken (2 weeks at £465.83/week). | Upheld | — | £932 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for unpaid wages well-founded but no separate remedy awarded (no additional loss/damage evidenced beyond the wages claim). | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for employer's breach of contract (claimant's notice period) dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,656
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53, CA
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and anor EAT 0537/10
- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.