Case 2410906/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Olumefun v CareTech Community Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2410906/2023
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Panel members
- Miss S Howarth, Mr I Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Olumefun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found the Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 10 June 2023 to 23 April 2024 was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the agreed sum of £12,967.49.
The Tribunal found the Claimant's complaint of race discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 13 was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also found the complaint of victimisation under Equality Act 2010 section 27 was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It does not set out further written reasoning for the findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 10 June 2023 to 23 April 2024 was found well-founded and succeeded; the sum was described as agreed. | Upheld | — | £12,967 |
| Race discrimination | Complaint of race discrimination contrary to Equality Act 2010 section 13 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation contrary to Equality Act 2010 section 27 was found not well-founded and dismissed; the written judgment does not specify an associated protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,967
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 13 and 23
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 27
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.