Case 6016847/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P J Nsiah – v LJ Sure Mercies Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016847/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Claimant
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P J Nsiah –
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smeaton, sitting alone at Watford, reserved judgment on the Claimant's complaints of unlawful deductions of wages and breach of contract (notice pay). The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a care worker. The Tribunal found that unlawful deductions of wages for the period from 6 January 2024 to 15 August 2024 were well-founded and succeeded, amounting to approximately 687.30 hours, with the parties to agree exact figures by reference to the applicable National Minimum Wage rates of £10.42 and £11.44.
Earlier alleged deductions, including a week from 31 December 2022 when the Claimant was suspended (the Second Deduction) and a prior period (the First Deduction), were held to have been brought out of time. The Tribunal found that those earlier deductions did not form part of a series with the in-time deductions because they arose from a different erroneous basis, and that it was not reasonably practicable to have brought them in time; jurisdiction was therefore declined and those claims were dismissed.
The breach of contract (notice pay) claim succeeded: the Claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice based on 40 hours, having only been paid for 15 hours, so 25 hours remained owing. The Claimant's additional £6,000 claim for non-financial loss was not made out. The Tribunal also made a minimum award of two weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for the Respondent's breach of s.1 ERA 1996 in failing to provide a written statement of particulars, declining the higher four weeks' award. A remedy hearing was directed if the parties could not agree the final amount owed.
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 | Claim for unlawful deductions of wages for the period 6 January 2024 to 15 August 2024 was well-founded and succeeded. Tribunal found approximately 687.30 hours of unauthorised deductions, calculated by reference to NMW rates of £10.42 (Jan-Mar 2024) and £11.44 (Apr 2024 onwards). Exact figure to be agreed by parties or determined at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims for unlawful deductions of wages prior to January 2024 (the First Deduction and the Second Deduction relating to the week from 31 December 2022 suspension) were brought out of time. Tribunal held they did not form part of a series with the in-time deductions and it was not reasonably practicable to bring them in time; jurisdiction declined and claims dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract (notice pay) succeeded. Claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice pay based on 40 hours but had only been paid for 15 hours; 25 hours remained outstanding. Claimant's separate £6,000 claim for non-financial loss for breach of contract was rejected; no additional compensation ordered beyond repayment of the unlawfully deducted amounts. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for the Respondent's breach of s.1 ERA 1996 (failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment). Tribunal made the minimum award of two weeks' pay; declined to make the higher four weeks' award as not just and equitable in the circumstances. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.1 ERA 1996
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33
- Sinha v Taylor and others [2022] EWHC 1096 (Comm)
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.