Case 6024268/2025 · Employment Tribunal
F Hirmoge v East Midlands Homes Co-operative Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6024268/2025
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ben Chapman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
F Hirmoge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the respondent's name by consent to East Midlands Homes Co-operative Limited. It found that the claimant's breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £1373.63 as damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax on Post Employment Notice Pay.
The Tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's holiday pay claim as an unauthorised deduction of wages claim because the issue concerned overpayment of wages, which it identified as an exempt deduction under s. 14 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the unauthorised deduction of wages claim relating to the claimant's hourly rate, and the claim under s. 38 Employment Act 1996, were not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint related to notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,374 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay issue was brought as an unauthorised deduction of wages claim, but the Tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction because the issue was one of overpayment of wages, an exempt deduction under s. 14 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction of wages claim in relation to the claimant's hourly rate was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim under s. 38 Employment Act 1996 was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,374
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s. 14 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.