Case 1401284/2025 · Employment Tribunal
IHUOMA MBADIWE v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401284/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IHUOMA MBADIWE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 12 March 2025. The respondent failed to 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 made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,309.54 gross. It also found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,052.16 gross.
The tribunal further 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 £1,904.00 gross pay. The recorded monetary awards total £8,265.70 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment describes this as failure to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,904 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and must pay this gross sum. | Upheld | — | £4,310 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay this gross sum. | Upheld | — | £2,052 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,266
- 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.