Case 6035258/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C. Banks v National Care Network Franchising Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6035258/2025
- Decision date
- 6 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C. Banks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found Mr C. Banks's complaint of breach of contract concerning notice pay well-founded and ordered National Care Network Franchising Ltd to pay £1,041.66 in damages. It also found the holiday-pay complaint well-founded because the respondent had failed to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when the claimant's employment ended. It awarded £913.42 as damages, stated to be the net value of the amount due.
Under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal determined that Mr Banks was entitled to a redundancy payment of £961.56. It also found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £2,708.33. The four awards total £5,624.97. Full reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records no further reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. | Upheld | — | £1,042 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as damages for breach of contract; the judgment states that this was the net value of the amount due. | Upheld | — | £913 |
| Redundancy | Entitlement determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £962 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,708 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,625
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.