Case 3312475/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Kabba v Today D Care Ltd t/a Devana Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312475/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Kabba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 9 October 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge George Date decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claim succeeds and that the claimant's remedy will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. The written record provided does not set out any monetary award, identify any legal test applied, or break the success down into separate quantified heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment says only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and that remedy will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing; it does not give a head-by-head breakdown in the text provided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The written judgment says only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and that remedy will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing; it does not give a head-by-head breakdown in the text provided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment says only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and that remedy will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing; it does not give a head-by-head breakdown in the text provided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment says only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and that remedy will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing; it does not give a head-by-head breakdown in the text provided. | Upheld | — | — |
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.