Case 6018910/2025 · Employment Tribunal
OFOMA IFECHUKWU v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018910/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
OFOMA IFECHUKWU
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 21 May 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Dawson decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Ms Ifechukwu's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £4,623.54 gross for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide a written contract or statement of particulars, contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It awarded the claimant £1,904.00 gross pay for that failure, making the recorded monetary awards £6,527.54 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,623.54 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,624 |
| Other | The tribunal found a failure to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded £1,904.00 gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,904 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,528
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.