Cases6007568/2024

Claimant v IANS Domiciliary Care Limited

28 October 2025Before Employment Judge T.R. SmithWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£2,656

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The claimant was entitled to £1863.33 gross per month. The respondent made unauthorised deductions totalling £1724.22 across October 2023 to February 2024. There was no explanation from the respondent for the deductions and no contractual or statutory provision authorising them. Only tax and national insurance deductions were permitted under the staff handbook.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The claimant was entitled to 28 days annual leave pro-rated over 6 months of employment, giving her 14 days paid leave. She was not permitted to take any holiday during her employment and was not paid for accrued leave on termination. The contract expressly provided that unused holiday would be pro-rated if employment ended part way through the holiday year.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

There was an express contractual term that the claimant would be paid £1863.33 gross per month. The respondent failed to pay the full contractual salary for October 2023 to February 2024, which was outstanding when employment ended. This was a fundamental breach of the employment contract. No additional damages awarded as claimant received compensation through the unlawful deduction claim.

Breach of Contractfailed

The respondent's counterclaim for the claimant failing to work her notice period was dismissed. The claimant gave evidence that she worked her one week notice period from 9 to 16 February 2024. Moreover, the employer had already fundamentally breached the contract by failing to pay wages, entitling the claimant to terminate. No evidence was provided by the respondent.

Facts

The claimant, a Filipino national working as a Home Care Assistant, was systematically underpaid by approximately £268 per month between October 2023 and February 2024, receiving less than her contractual salary of £1863.33 gross per month. She was also not permitted to take any of her 28 days annual leave entitlement and was not paid for accrued leave on termination in February 2024. The respondent had initially promised a 5-year work visa but only provided 7 months, placing the claimant's immigration status in jeopardy. She was forced to urgently find new employment to maintain her visa, which delayed her presenting claims to the tribunal.

Decision

The tribunal extended time for the claims, finding it was not reasonably practicable to present in time given the claimant's urgent need to secure employment to maintain her visa, and that she presented within a further reasonable period. All claims succeeded. The respondent made unauthorised deductions totalling £1724.22, failed to pay for 14 days of accrued holiday (£931.66), and breached the contract by underpaying wages. The respondent's counterclaim for failure to work notice was dismissed. The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Practical note

Tribunals will take a liberal approach to extending time limits for migrant workers facing visa jeopardy where urgent reemployment was necessary to maintain legal status, particularly where the worker is unfamiliar with UK legal systems and unrepresented.

Award breakdown

Holiday pay£932
Unpaid wages£1,724

Award equivalent: 6.2 weeks' gross pay

Legal authorities cited

Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd EAT 0537/10Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.13Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.13

Case details

Case number
6007568/2024
Decision date
28 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
Home Care Assistant
Salary band
£20,000–£25,000
Service
7 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No