Case 2602311/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Sanyaolu v Citytrust Investments Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602311/2022
- Decision date
- 25 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore NLM
- Venue
- Nottingham in person and
- Panel members
- Mrs D Newton, Mr M Alibhai
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Sanyaolu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Senior Care Assistant from 28 February 2022 until 16 June 2022. He brought claims arising from dismissal, pay deductions, holiday pay, working time, and expense reimbursement. During the hearing he withdrew the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 and the race and sex discrimination claims, and the tribunal recorded those, together with the remaining withdrawn WTR claims, as dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s employment ended when the dismissal was communicated by WhatsApp at 11:47am on 16 June 2022. On the expenses dispute, it found that the claimant had signed contracts containing loan and deduction clauses, had been told about deductions on his payslips, and had accepted communications showing that flights were not included. It rejected the claim that the respondent had agreed to pay his flight from Nigeria or to reimburse the wider expense items raised in the breach of contract claim. It also rejected the later rent reimbursement claim because the payment was made after dismissal and to another legal entity, and it found the section 15 claim failed because the claimant’s message saying he would transfer the money amounted to written consent.
On the section 13 deductions claim, the tribunal found that the £334 accommodation security deposit should not have been deducted and that this item succeeded by consent. It also found that the £35 uniform deduction was well founded. The claims for £334 monthly rent, £10 shopping, £30 airport transfer, £65.60 bus fare and £15.95 shopping were dismissed. Holiday pay of £47.91 gross was agreed and payable by consent, and the total payable was £416.91 gross.
On working time, the tribunal found that regulation 21(c)(i) applied to the claimant’s home-care work, so the 11-hour daily rest entitlement in regulation 10 did not apply. It accepted that he was instead entitled to compensatory rest under regulation 24, but found no breach of regulation 24 on the facts.
Claims and outcomes
15 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim was withdrawn during the hearing. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim was withdrawn during the hearing. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | Untaken holiday pay accrued on termination was agreed at £47.91 gross and succeeded by consent. | Upheld | — | £48 |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 was withdrawn during the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The remaining WTR claims other than holiday pay and the reg 10/24 issue were withdrawn and recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The reg 10 daily rest / reg 24 compensatory rest claim failed; reg 21(c)(i) applied and no breach of reg 24 was found. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £417
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- balance of probabilities
- Gallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2005] ICR 673
- regulation 21(c)(i) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.