Case 1400323/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Rose Villa Staff & 28 others v Rose Villa Care Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400323/2025
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yallop REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Rose Villa Staff & 28 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaints, holiday pay complaints, arrears of pay complaints, and some notice pay and redundancy payment complaints were withdrawn and dismissed. Notice pay complaints by Edina Chikaka, Amelia D'Arcy, Aysha Osman and Freya Robinson were found not well-founded and dismissed, and redundancy payment complaints by eight named Claimants were also found not well-founded and dismissed.
Save in respect of the first Claimant, the complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded. The Tribunal made a protective award requiring the First Respondent to pay the listed Claimants remuneration for 90 days beginning on 14 February 2025.
The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply. No monetary award totals or written reasons were included in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint by each Claimant of unfair dismissal was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaints by each Claimant in respect of holiday pay were withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints by each Claimant in respect of arrears of pay were withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaints by Edina Chikaka, Amelia D'Arcy, Aysha Osman and Freya Robinson were not well-founded and dismissed; the notice pay complaints by the other Claimants were withdrawn and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment complaints by Nnaekezie Amoliofo, Hayley Barrett, Matthew Flecknor, Lina Garcia, Rebecca Pike, Hugo Rutter, Amasha Tissera and Mark Warner were not well-founded and dismissed; the redundancy payment complaints by the other Claimants were withdrawn and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Save in respect of the first Claimant, the complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 concerning failure to comply with section 188 were well-founded. The protective award was 90 days' remuneration beginning on 14 February 2025, but no monetary figure was stated. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.