Case 1401278/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Faith Negedu v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401278/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Faith Negedu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 13 March 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Dawson decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Faith Negedu's wages and ordered Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd, in creditors' voluntary liquidation, to pay £4,309.54 gross. The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, and awarded £1,868.76 gross pay for that matter.
No discrimination claim, interest award, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings award is recorded in the judgment. The recorded gross sums awarded are £4,309.54 and £1,868.76, totalling £6,178.30.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and must pay £4,309.54 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,310 |
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002; the locked taxonomy has no specific written particulars claim type. | Upheld | — | £1,869 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,178
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.