Case 1804071/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Ibrahim v Miss Irene Nakamatte and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804071/2021
- Decision date
- 8 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Ms H Brown, Mr M Brewer
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss N Ibrahim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant had entered into an agreement with the second respondent to work as a registered manager from 16 June 2021 on a salary of at least £2,500 per month. It rejected the respondents' case that there had been no employment relationship, finding that the claimant was employed, under their control, and held out to the CQC as the registered manager.
It found that the claimant made three qualifying protected disclosures: on 14 July 2021 to CQC inspector Claire Snowden, on 26 July 2021 to the first respondent, and again on 27 July 2021 to the CQC. The tribunal accepted that she was concerned about access to the office, emails and client files, and about care and safeguarding issues affecting the second respondent's clients. It held that those disclosures were made in the public interest and tended to show a risk to health and safety. The CQC inspection findings were broadly consistent with the claimant's account.
The tribunal held that the dismissal communicated by Mr Kaggwa on 27 July 2021 was because of the claimant's contact with the CQC, so the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 succeeded. It also held that the failure to pay the claimant was a detriment under section 47B ERA 1996, materially influenced by the protected disclosures. The tribunal found that the claimant experienced some injury to feelings from the non-payment of wages, but that the main distress came from the respondents' failure to allow her to do her job properly.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £5,668 for unfair dismissal, with no basic award because the claimant had less than one year's service. It awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings for the whistleblowing detriment, £2,862.60 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, and £2,176 under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The total award was £12,706.60.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996; the tribunal found the 27 July 2021 text from Mr Kaggwa showed the dismissal was because the claimant had contacted the CQC about her concerns. | Upheld | — | £5,668 |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 against both respondents; the tribunal found the non-payment of wages was materially influenced by the protected disclosures and awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings only. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The second respondent paid no wages at all for the employment period found by the tribunal (16 June 2021 to 27 July 2021); gross weekly wage was assessed at £572.52. | Upheld | — | £2,863 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of main terms of employment; the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002, using the statutory maximum weekly pay of £544. | Upheld | — | £2,176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,707
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,668
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Parsons v Airplus Ltd
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- s.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.