Case 2400774/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss K Czuchraj v Tola Taiwo — 2022

Case reference: 2400774/2022
Decision date: 5 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Franey

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss K Czuchraj

Respondent

Tola Taiwo

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because employment appeared to be continuing and the judge said there had been no dismissal. It also struck out the discrimination complaint because the claimant had not identified any protected characteristic, and the judgment stated that a refusal to be vaccinated is not itself a protected characteristic.

The tribunal said the only claim that appeared viable was a complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay based on the failure to allocate the claimant hours of work. It directed the claimant to provide a calculation of the amount claimed in respect of unpaid wages within 14 days, required the respondent to file a response addressing that issue within 28 days, and listed the case for a two-hour hearing on that point alone.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because employment appeared to be continuing; the tribunal said there had been no dismissal.	Struck out	—	—
Other	The tribunal struck out the discrimination complaint because the claimant had not identified any protected characteristic. It stated that a refusal to be vaccinated is not itself a protected characteristic.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal said this was the only claim that appeared viable, based on an alleged failure to allocate hours of work. It was not finally determined in this judgment; the claimant was directed to provide a calculation of unpaid wages and the issue was listed for a two-hour hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.

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.