Case 2404959/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Olofintila v DSK44 Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2404959/2025
- Decision date
- 1 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Olofintila
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing DSK44 Ltd's failure to present a valid response on time, Employment Judge Dunlop determined part of Miss A Olofintila's claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The Tribunal found that DSK44 Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from her wages and ordered it to pay £1,172.16 gross. It found that DSK44 Ltd had engaged Miss Olofintila for a minimum of two shifts per week but failed to offer shifts, leaving her 11 shifts short at the end of her employment. The judgment states that the award was calculated as 11 shifts × 8 hours × £12.21, although that formula does not arithmetically equal the awarded sum.
The Tribunal also found that Miss Olofintila was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £195.36, calculated as one week's notice comprising two shifts. The total award was £1,367.52. The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to make awards for employer pension contributions and National Insurance contributions. It made no judgment on the disability discrimination claim, which was to proceed to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment awards £1,172.16 gross, but its stated calculation of 11 shifts × 8 hours × £12.21 produces £1,074.48. | Upheld | — | £1,172 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £195 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,368
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22, Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.