Case 1401282/2025 · Employment Tribunal
G Olamikan v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401282/2025
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Olamikan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 16 September 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awards damages of £516.00 for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars. It awarded the claimant 2 weeks' pay, stated as £1,032, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The note to the judgment says there was nothing in the claim form making it just and equitable to increase that award. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,548.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal found to be in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £516 |
| Other | Award of 2 weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,032 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,548
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- section 38 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.