Case 3306538/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T. Mlambo v Kokio Health Care Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306538/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss T. Mlambo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided a preliminary issue at a public preliminary hearing. It found that the claimant was employed by the First Respondent under a contract of employment and had the necessary employment status to pursue claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment did not determine the substantive claims or award any remedy. It listed a further preliminary hearing for case management on 12 May 2026 and a final hearing on 16, 17, 18 and 19 February 2027, to be heard by a judge sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment is a preliminary issue decision. It records that the claimant has the necessary employment status to pursue claims under the Equality Act 2010, but it does not adjudicate the substantive sex discrimination claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary issue decision. It records that the claimant has the necessary employment status to pursue claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, but it does not adjudicate the substantive unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a preliminary issue decision. It records that the claimant has the necessary employment status to pursue claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, but it does not adjudicate the substantive unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Other | — | — |
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.