Case 1600426/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Timala Healthcare Ltd and others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600426/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal consolidated the listed case numbers under rule 9. It granted the 10th Claimant permission to amend her claim so that it proceeded against the First and Second Respondents only, and granted permission for her to withdraw the claim against the Third Respondent.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and 10th Claimants’ claims against the First Respondent were well-founded and would succeed, with credit for any sums already paid. No remedy figure was determined in this judgment.
The tribunal directed that the proceedings be relisted on the first open date on or after 18 November 2022 for a final hearing limited to remedy, to be heard by CVP and listed for one day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and 10th Claimants’ claims against the First Respondent were well-founded and would succeed with credit for any sums already paid. The 10th Claimant was also granted permission to withdraw the claim against the Third Respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.