Case 6005374/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Okpah v Balance Support CIO — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005374/2024
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Okpah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well founded.
The Tribunal upheld one breach of contract complaint concerning the respondent's failure to make deductions for the claimant's student loans, which resulted in a late payment charge and interest. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £101.75, although the judgment text records the figure as £101,75.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's breach of contract complaint concerning provision of training and dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages complaint concerning bereavement pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the breach of contract complaint concerning failure to make student loan deductions was well founded. The award appears in the text as £101,75, so the decimal amount is inferred from context. | Upheld | — | £102 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract complaint concerning provision of training was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unlawful deduction of wages complaint in respect of bereavement pay was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £102
- across all upheld claims
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.