Case 3200558/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hawa Ibrahim v ACG Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200558/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Searley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hawa Ibrahim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that ACG Care Limited made unauthorised deductions from Hawa Ibrahim's wages in two separate periods. First, it held that deductions from pay in August 2023 were well-founded as a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, covering the period from 29 July 2023 to 23 August 2023.
The tribunal also upheld the claim in relation to the claimant's final payment. It found unauthorised deductions relating to a DBS check and to shadowing hours, for the period 26 November 2023 to 5 December 2023.
For the August 2023 deductions, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £322.50 gross, described as 30 hours at £10.75 per hour. For the final payment deductions, it ordered £472.00 gross, made up of £85 for the DBS check and 36 hours of shadowing at £10.75 per hour. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages were found in relation to pay in August 2023, covering the period 29 July 2023 to 23 August 2023. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum deducted, calculated as 30 hours at £10.75 per hour. | Upheld | — | £323 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions were found in relation to the claimant's final payment for the period 26 November 2023 to 5 December 2023. The tribunal accepted deductions for a DBS check of £85 and shadowing hours of 36 hours at £10.75 per hour, and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £472 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £795
- 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.