Case 3204697/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs. O. E. Fatokun v Flourishgate Care Services Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3204697/2021
Decision date: 14 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge E. Misra KC

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs. O. E. Fatokun

Respondent

Flourishgate Care Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs O. E. Fatokun’s claims against Flourishgate Care Services Limited were heard at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 11 to 14 July 2023 before Employment Judge E. Misra KC. The judgment records that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

This 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
Unfair dismissal	Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Claim for failure to pay notice pay under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; withdrawn by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Breach of contract	Alleged failure to provide notice for removing administrative duties from the claimant on 28 December 2020.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for an unauthorised deduction of wages during a period of suspension under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Claim for alleged failure to pay sums due for annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998, pleaded alternatively as an unauthorised deduction of wages.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Claim that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment or a change of particulars under ss.1 and 4 ERA.

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.