Case 3201350/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Terry Osas Egiarhuoyi Respondent Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v Mr C Rix — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201350/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Tribunal
- Panel members
- J Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Terry Osas Egiarhuoyi Respondent Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that three of the claimant's claims did not have reasonable prospects of success and were struck out. These were an unlawful deduction of wages claim based on entitlement to contractual holiday pay, a detriment claim under section 45A Employment Rights Act 1996, and an unlawful deduction of wages claim about not being paid a band 6 salary.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as unlawful deduction of wages based on entitlement to contractual holiday pay. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim described as detriments contrary to section 45A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as unlawful deduction of wages about not being paid a band 6 salary. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonable prospects of success
- section 45A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.