Case 6000399/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Timothy Oluwaremi v Vanclaron CIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000399/2025
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phillips
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Timothy Oluwaremi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Nottingham on 25 April 2025 before Employment Judge Phillips sitting alone. The claimant, Timothy Oluwaremi, appeared in person and the respondent, Vanclaron CIC, was represented by Mr P Cook, Director for the respondent.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for breach of contract, stating that it was not well founded. It also dismissed the claim for wages, likewise stating that it was not well founded. A separate claim for aggravated damages was also dismissed as not well founded.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also records that written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or is made in writing within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claim for breach of contract was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to a 'Claim for wages' being not well founded and dismissed; this is mapped to unlawful deduction from wages on the basis of the listing categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment separately dismissed a claim for aggravated damages as not well founded. | 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.