Case 2403352/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Chimex & others (see schedule) v ASC Healthcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403352/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Chimex & others (see schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with the matter on an uncontested basis after the response form had been dismissed under rule 28. It found that each claimant’s complaint under section 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, that ASC Healthcare Limited had failed to pay a protective award, was well-founded.
The Tribunal ordered payment of the sums listed in paragraph 2 of the judgment pursuant to the protective award judgment of 11 March 2024. The ordered amounts were £5,778.74, £9,587.25, £5,736.12, £2,356.39, £6,680.26, £4,176.95, £7,396.22, £6,846.96, £9,410.84, £8,056.70 and £6,474.47, making a total of £72,500.90.
The Tribunal recorded that Ms Ibe (2403357/2024) and Ms Kelly (2403359/2024) were not covered by the judgment because they had not yet provided details of the amount they said they were claiming. It said a further judgment could be issued for those claimants if the details were provided within 21 days, and that if no details were provided the claims might be dismissed as not actively pursued.
The judgment also included the standard interest notice: no interest would be payable if the sums were paid within 14 days after the written record was sent, otherwise interest would accrue from 3 December 2024 at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Antonia Chimex's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | £5,779 |
| Other | Tyla Oliveira's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2; the schedule names Ms Tyla D'Oliveira. | Upheld | — | £9,587 |
| Other | Tantine Nkolo Molenge's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | £5,736 |
| Other | Edith Dahe's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | £2,356 |
| Other | Nafeesa Kabir's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | £6,680 |
| Other | Solange Nehuduh Ndikum's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | £4,177 |
| Other | Zineb Outabounte's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. | Upheld | — | £7,396 |
| Other | Angeline Matipano's protective award sum ordered under paragraph 2. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £72,501
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 192 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 28
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.