Case 3315346/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Adelaide Adjei v Mihomecare Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315346/2020
- Decision date
- 2 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms L Jaffi, Ms B Von-Maydell-Koch
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Adelaide Adjei
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAn Employment Tribunal sitting at Watford on 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2023, before Employment Judge Young with lay members Ms L Jaffi and Ms B Von-Maydell-Koch, found that Ms Adelaide Adjei's unfair dismissal claim against Mihomecare Limited was well founded and succeeded. The tribunal dismissed her claims for direct race discrimination, discrimination by association on the grounds of pregnancy, victimisation, unlawful deduction of wages, and breach of contract.
The judgment recorded that a further remedy hearing would take place on 11 and 14 August 2023 to determine any remedy arising from the unfair dismissal claim. No monetary award was fixed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Judgment described this as a claim for direct race discrimination on the grounds of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Judgment described this as a claim for discrimination by association on the grounds of pregnancy. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.