Case 3333881/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Assisted by his father Mr F Fox For the v Dr Ivor Ibakakombo — 2020
- Case reference
- 3333881/2018
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs K Knapton, Mrs I Sood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Assisted by his father Mr F Fox For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant was employed by Mr Thetka individually, trading as Nimy Collezioni, and that Nimy Collezioni Embroidery Limited never existed. It accepted the Acas certificate as covering the respondent or, alternatively, amended the respondent's name. The claimant worked as a shop assistant from 29 March 2018 to 10 September 2018, so the unfair dismissal claim failed because he did not have two years' service.
The claim for unauthorised deductions was well-founded because £1,156 was deducted from pay for tax and National Insurance but not paid to HMRC. The respondent discharged that liability by paying £1,156 at the hearing, so no further award was made on that head. The tribunal also made a declaration on the pay/tax position. It further found that the respondent's attempt to reduce the claimant's hours from 28 to 22 and switch him to self-employed status was a repudiatory breach, so the claimant was constructively dismissed and was awarded one week's notice pay of £206.64.
The tribunal found a breach of the obligation to provide written particulars within eight weeks of employment and awarded four weeks' pay of £826.56 under s.1 ERA 1996. It also found that the claimant was disabled by reason of Asperger's syndrome and dyspraxia, that the respondent knew this, and that direct disability discrimination occurred when the respondent withheld or mishandled the deductions, issued a July 2018 contract that was not backdated to 29 March 2018, and used the wrong employer name.
Applying the burden-shifting approach under s.136 Equality Act 2010 and Igen v Wong, the tribunal awarded £6,000 for injury to feelings, giving a total compensation figure of £7,033.20. It rejected indirect discrimination as undeveloped and declined to impose a penalty under s.12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 because it was not satisfied that the respondent had the means to pay it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rejected because the claimant had only 5 months and 11 days' service and therefore did not meet the two-year qualifying period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that £1,156 had been deducted from pay for tax and National Insurance but not paid to HMRC; the respondent discharged that liability by paying £1,156 at the hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found a repudiatory breach when the respondent sought to reduce hours from 28 to 22 and move the claimant to self-employed status; one week's notice pay was awarded. | Upheld | — | £207 |
| Other | Breach of the duty to provide written particulars under s.1 ERA 1996; the tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £827 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found after applying the burden-shifting approach in s.136 Equality Act 2010 and Igen v Wong; the respondent knew the claimant had Asperger's syndrome and dyspraxia. | Upheld | Disability | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,033
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,033
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong
- repudiatory breach of contract
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Vento guidelines (2018)
- s.12A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.