Case 2306414/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Juliana Serrao v NHS Professionals Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306414/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson
- Panel members
- A Sadler, C Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Juliana Serrao
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claims. It held that the claims concerning 30 December 2022, 11 January 2023 and 18 January 2023 were not presented within the applicable time limit, that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time, and that those deductions were not part of a series ending with the alleged deduction made on 8 June 2023.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim concerning the alleged deduction made on 8 June 2023, recorded as paid on 23 June 2023, finding that complaint not well founded. It then dismissed the related claim for unpaid annual leave, which it described as consequential on the wages claim.
The complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure was likewise found not well founded and dismissed. The decision was explained orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims concerning deductions on 30 December 2022, 11 January 2023 and 18 January 2023 were dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present them in time and that they were not part of a series ending with the alleged deduction on 8 June 2023. The claim concerning the alleged deduction made on 8 June 2023 (paid on 23 June 2023) was also dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a consequential claim for unpaid annual leave relating to the unauthorised deduction of wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of being subjected to detriments for making a protected disclosure was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.