Case 2401924/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss Juliet Udoma (2401924/2024 and 2402103/2024) (2) Mrs Maria Udoma (2401925/2024 and 2402102/2024) v LJ Health and Wellbeing Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401924/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Miss Juliet Udoma (2401924/2024 and 2402103/2024) (2) Mrs Maria Udoma (2401925/2024 and 2402102/2024)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought claims for unpaid wages and redundancy payments against LJ Health and Wellbeing Ltd and Jacksonwell Recruitment Limited. The tribunal recorded that the unpaid wages claims were unquantified and that the claimants had not provided evidence explaining why or how they were entitled to the sums claimed.
Neither claimant attended the case management hearing or the final hearing, and they did not respond to requests for further information. The tribunal found that neither claimant had more than two years' service, which was required for entitlement to a redundancy payment, and dismissed the remaining claims against both respondents.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimants claimed unpaid wages, but the sums were unquantified and no evidence was provided. The judgment states that all remaining claims were dismissed, although the reasons also refer to the claims being struck out. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimants claimed a redundancy payment, but the tribunal recorded that neither claimant had more than two years' service. The operative judgment states that all remaining claims were dismissed; the reasons also refer to the claims being struck out. | 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.