Case 6020745/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Nnabuchi v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020745/2025
- Decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Nnabuchi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South West Employment Tribunals on 4 June 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Smail determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on 17 February 2026.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages totalling £10,367.08 gross, had not been paid holiday pay of £571.12 gross, and that the respondent had failed to provide a statement of main terms and conditions of employment, attracting compensation of £1,904.00. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the total gross sum of £12,842.20 subject to any deductions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 default judgment. Unauthorised deductions from wages, gross. | Upheld | — | £10,367 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 22 default judgment. Unpaid holiday pay, gross; tax to be deducted as necessary. | Upheld | — | £571 |
| Other | Rule 22 default judgment. Compensation for failure to provide a written statement of main terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,904 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,842
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 38 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.