Case 2402088/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sanyaolu v Upwards Care Solutions Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402088/2024
- Decision date
- 14 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sanyaolu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shotter, sitting alone at Liverpool on 17 July 2024, determined two linked claims brought by Mr A Sanyaolu against Upwards Care Solutions Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had not paid the claimant for 30 hours worked as agreed, and held that his complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded. By agreement between the parties, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £330 gross, calculated as 30 hours at £11 per hour, less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance.
The claimant's separate claim for breach of contract, which concerned unpaid expenses, was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not record reasons for the withdrawal.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 23 July 2024. No further legal tests, authorities, or findings beyond the agreed disposal were set out in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint well-founded; respondent ordered by agreement to pay £330 gross (30 hours x £11 per hour) less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £330 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid expenses dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £330
- 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.