Case 6023967/2025 · Employment Tribunal
OLUWABUNMI ADETAYO v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6023967/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
OLUWABUNMI ADETAYO
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 27 June 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Dawson decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined.
The tribunal found that Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Oluwabunmi Adetayo's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £8424.01 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £542.48 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It awarded the claimant £1868.07 gross pay for that failure. The judgment records separate gross sums totalling £10834.56, with no interest or other remedy components stated.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 £8424.01 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,424 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found failure to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £542.48 gross. | Upheld | — | £542 |
| Other | The tribunal found failure to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded £1868.07 gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,868 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,835
- 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.