Cases6023343/2024

Claimant v Harkins Care Homecare

6 June 2025Before Employment Judge MaidmentLeedson papers

Outcome

Default judgment£1,954

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The claimant succeeded on the claim of unauthorised deductions from wages. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,436.27 gross.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent had failed to reimburse mileage expenses. This constituted a breach of contract. Damages were awarded in the sum of £517.86.

Facts

Mr Adebiyi brought claims against his employer Harkins Care Homecare, a homecare provider. The respondent failed to present a valid response within the required timeframe. The claims related to unauthorised deductions from wages totalling £1,436.27 and failure to reimburse mileage expenses of £517.86.

Decision

The Employment Judge determined the claim on the papers under rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure, given the respondent's failure to file a response. The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on both claims and awarded a total of £1,954.13 comprising unpaid wages and mileage expenses.

Practical note

Where a respondent fails to file a valid ET3 response on time, an Employment Judge can make a default judgment under rule 21 without a hearing, determining claims in favour of the claimant based on the ET1.

Award breakdown

Unpaid wages£1,436

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 21Employment Rights Act 1996

Case details

Case number
6023343/2024
Decision date
6 June 2025
Hearing type
rule 21
Hearing days
Classification
default

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No