Case 2211431/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Yiangu v Raphael Nursery Limited London Central: by CVP on 14/15/18/19 December 2023 — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211431/2022
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Yiangu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim of Ms S Yiangu against Raphael Nursery Limited London Central. It dismissed the claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states that oral reasons were given on 19 December 2023, but no further reasoning is included in the extracted text.
The tribunal upheld the claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded the claimant the gross sum of £3,877.94 and stated that the claimant was responsible for accounting for any tax payable on that sum. No separate breakdown of remedy components is provided in the record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal recorded that the claim was for automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded the gross sum of £3,877.94. | Upheld | — | £3,878 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,878
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
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.