Case 3300186/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Jikeme v Seva Childcare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300186/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sagar, Ms N Duncan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Jikeme
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr G Jikeme made two protected disclosures and that his employment ended when Seva Childcare Ltd dismissed him without notice on 6 September 2022. It held that the dismissal was in breach of contract and that he was entitled to one month's notice, to expire no earlier than 6 October 2022. It also found that the dismissal was unfair under s.103A ERA 1996 because the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures.
Under s.47B ERA 1996, the tribunal upheld detriment complaints arising from suspending him on 2 August 2022 and informing him on 16 August 2022 that the suspension would be without pay, including the failure to pay him while suspended. The alleged third detriment, relating to the dismissal itself, did not succeed because it was excluded by s.47B(2). The tribunal awarded £7,500 for injury to feelings for the successful detriments.
On remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay £25,989.97. The breakdown included a £856.50 basic award, £8,161.33 compensatory award, £1,836.83 for unused holiday pay, £3,700.93 salary for 2 August to 6 September 2022, £1,515.24 damages for failure to give notice, and a 25% uplift of £2,419.14 under s.207A TULRCA 1992. The tribunal recorded that item 9(ii) was agreed between the parties, that item 9(iii) was treated as a gross figure to avoid double recovery, and that the claimant had not received benefits in the compensatory period so the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal upheld s.47B detriment complaints about suspending the claimant on 2 August 2022 and telling him on 16 August 2022 that the suspension would be without pay, including the failure to pay him while suspended. | Upheld | — | £7,500 |
| Whistleblowing | The alleged third detriment, said to be the dismissal itself, did not succeed because it was excluded from s.47B by s.47B(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was dismissed without notice on 6 September 2022 and the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, contrary to s.103A ERA 1996. The award comprised a £856.50 basic award and an £8,161.33 compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £9,018 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract because the claimant was entitled to one month's notice, expiring no earlier than 6 October 2022. Damages for failure to give notice were £1,515.24. | Upheld | — | £1,515 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to pay the claimant from 2 August 2022 to 6 September 2022. Item 9(iii) was awarded as a gross figure because one upheld complaint for that period was unauthorised deduction from wages; the tribunal said the net loss for that period would have been £2,694.28 and made no separate award to avoid double recovery. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,990
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £857
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,161
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.47B(2) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
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.