Case 6000582/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashel Sikaruva v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000582/2024
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr H Patel, Mr D Clements
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ashel Sikaruva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol on 19 and 20 May 2025, a tribunal comprising Employment Judge Midgley, Mr H Patel and Mr D Clements heard the claimant's claims against Yellow Rose Healthcare Limited. The tribunal's unanimous judgment found that the reason or principal reason for Mr Sikaruva's dismissal was the making of a protected interest disclosure, so that claim succeeded.
The claims for unpaid holiday pay and notice pay did not proceed to a substantive determination. They were withdrawn by the claimant after the respondent had paid the sums due in satisfaction of those claims, and the judgment records them as dismissed on that basis.
Compensation for the successful claim was not determined in the liability judgment. The tribunal directed that compensation would be dealt with at a separate remedy hearing, to be listed by later communication.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the making of a protected interest disclosure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn by the claimant after the respondent had paid the sums due in satisfaction of the claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim withdrawn by the claimant after the respondent had paid the sums due in satisfaction of the claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.