Case 2310208/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E J Inokoba & Ors v Mitie Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2310208/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E J Inokoba & Ors
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants claimed breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from payments contractually due to them. They said a 5.5% pay uplift backdated to 1 April 2024 had been paid on 11 November 2024, but had been calculated on basic pay only and not applied to holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, and pay under the HCAS agreement.
Mr Inokoba provided a schedule showing the sums earned from April to October 2024, the 5.5% uplift due, the amounts paid, and the shortfall for each claimant. The tribunal noted that four claimants had not included figures and concluded that they did not seek compensation.
The respondent did not file an ET3, did not attend the hearing, and did not engage with the claim. The tribunal was satisfied the respondent had been properly served and had a fair opportunity to attend or defend the claim. As the respondent had not disputed the contractual obligation, the shortfalls, or the calculations, the claims succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay the listed gross sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment found the breach of contract claim well founded but did not apportion the monetary awards between breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found the unauthorised deductions from wages claim well founded but did not apportion the monetary awards between this claim and breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,949
- 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.