Case 2301640/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mithamo v Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Alliance of Churches — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301640/2021
- Decision date
- 26 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Self on 26 July 2023, recorded that the claimant had been an employee of the respondent from 7 December 2016. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and unpaid holiday pay on termination were each well-founded.
The tribunal awarded £3,650 for unfair dismissal, £1,817.33 for the redundancy payment claim, and £242.16 for unpaid holiday pay. It rejected the claimant’s separate claim for unpaid wages said to arise from a failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, finding that claim was not well-founded and dismissing it.
The total sum payable under the judgment was £5,709.49. The tribunal also recorded that, on the information given, the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed was well-founded and awarded £3,650 in compensation. | Upheld | — | £3,650 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim was well-founded and awarded £1,817.33 in compensation. | Upheld | — | £1,817 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid holiday pay on termination was well-founded and awarded £242.16 in compensation. | Upheld | — | £242 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages based on an alleged failure to pay the National Minimum Wage was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,709
- 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.