Case 3201807/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Owusu v Chariot Clean FM limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201807/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iman Appearances
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Owusu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Iman determined this rule 22 default judgment after the respondent (in voluntary liquidation) was barred from defending the claim following non-compliance with an Unless Order dated 2 May 2025. The ET3 was struck out and the respondent did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal in respect of notice pay, unlawful deduction of wages in respect of holiday pay, and direct disability discrimination. A 10% uplift was applied for failure to follow the ACAS Code, taking the total award to £26,046.90 (£23,679 + £2,367 ACAS uplift).
A legal costs application was not awarded; a separate costs application with specificity would need to be made. The judgment notes the respondent is responsible for deducting tax and National Insurance at source.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Loss of statutory rights £500 plus past losses £7,296 (£192 x 38 weeks) plus future losses £7,488 (£192 x 39 weeks). | Upheld | — | £15,284 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay (£192 net x 2 weeks). | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay (£192 net x 2 weeks). | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination; £5,000 injury to feelings (2023 Vento bands) plus 5.25% interest. | Upheld | Disability | £7,625 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,047
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 22 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Vento bands (2023)
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.