Case 1602844/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mpilo Sibanda v Deeper Care Solutions Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602844/2023
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Panel members
- Mr A Fryer, Ms B Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mpilo Sibanda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the Claimant's breach of contract complaint succeeded and ordered the Respondent to pay a gross sum of £430.00. It also recorded that the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint succeeded and ordered payment of £1,500.00.
The Tribunal dismissed the other complaints: direct race discrimination, victimisation, detriment by reason of having made protected disclosures, and unfair dismissal by reason of having made protected disclosures. Written reasons were not included in the judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states this complaint succeeded and awards a gross sum of £430.00. | Upheld | — | £430 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the complaint as unauthorised deductions from wages and awards £1,500.00. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states the complaint of direct race discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states the complaint of victimisation failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states the complaint of detriment by reason of having made protected disclosures failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint of unfair dismissal by reason of having made protected disclosures failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,930
- across all upheld claims
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.