Case 2300095/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Ms T M Williams — 2023

Case reference: 2300095/2022
Decision date: 6 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tueje BETWEEN

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Ms T M Williams

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Whitney Hay began work for Ms Tika Mesha Williams's home-based childminding service on 10 August 2021 and was dismissed by voice message on 17 November 2021 with effect from 18 November 2021. Although a written contract dated 6 October 2021 described the arrangement in self-employed or zero-hours terms, the tribunal found that the reality of the relationship remained one of employment. Applying the Ready Mixed Concrete approach and taking the evidence as a whole, it found Ms Hay provided her own work, was paid by the hour at £8.36 from 6 October 2021, and remained under Ms Williams's control throughout.

The tribunal rejected Ms Williams's reliance on parent complaints from September and October 2021 as the reason for dismissal. It found that the relevant reason, or principal reason, was the lunchtime conversation on 17 November 2021, when Ms Hay raised delayed national minimum wage backpay and complained about rest breaks. In the later voicemail, Ms Williams referred to the tense conversation, the pay issue and the breaks issue, and the tribunal treated those contemporaneous reasons as the basis for dismissal. It found that Ms Hay had asserted statutory rights under section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the two-year qualifying period did not apply.

On remedy, Ms Williams was ordered to pay a total of £5,433.98. That comprised £836 for breach of contract notice pay, £417.98 for unauthorised deductions from wages for 10 August 2021 to 4 October 2021, and £4,180 for unfair dismissal compensation covering loss of earnings from dismissal until Ms Hay started a new job on 18 April 2022. The tribunal did not award interest or a basic award. It also dismissed the separate special damages claim because the £10 cost of the paediatric first aid course had already been repaid. Because Ms Hay had received universal credit, the Recoupment Regulations applied: the prescribed element was £4,180, attributable to 18 November 2021 to 7 June 2023, and the balance above that amount was £1,253.98.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim for one month under the 6 October 2021 contract; Ms Williams conceded liability and the tribunal ordered the agreed gross sum of £836.00.	Upheld	—	£836
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found the pay due for 10 August 2021 to 4 October 2021 should be read up to the national minimum wage. It calculated the shortfall by reference to £8.36 per hour and 148.75 hours, correcting an oral arithmetic figure to £417.98.	Upheld	—	£418
Unfair dismissal	Held automatically unfair under section 104 ERA 1996 because the claimant was dismissed for asserting rights to the national minimum wage and rest breaks. The tribunal awarded compensatory loss only; no basic award was made.	Upheld	—	£4,180
Other	Claim for special damages arising from the £10 pediatric first aid course cost. The tribunal dismissed it after the claimant accepted that the £10 reimbursement had been paid on 13 April 2022.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £5,434; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £4,180; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.