Case 3202143/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Yilmaz v Bahay Kubo Housing Association Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202143/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Yilmaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the claimant's in-time application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It appeared to the Tribunal that it was likely it would find that, by virtue of section 103A ERA, the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.
The respondent was unwilling to reinstate or re-engage the claimant. The Tribunal therefore ordered that the claimant's contract of employment continue in force for pay and other employment-related benefits, seniority, pension rights and continuous employment purposes from 13 November 2024 until determination or settlement of the complaint.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP 849.34 gross on the 25th day of each month from 1 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief judgment under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996; the Tribunal found it likely it would find unfair dismissal by virtue of section 103A ERA, but did not finally determine the complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129(9)(b) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.