Case 6025288/2025 · Employment Tribunal
CHIAMAKA AGU v Yellow Rose Healthcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6025288/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
CHIAMAKA AGU
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 07 July 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Dawson decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £8304.41 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £544 gross.
The tribunal further 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 £1868.97 gross pay for that matter. The total of the sums recorded in the judgment is £10717.38 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records unauthorised deductions from wages and orders payment of £8304.41 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,304 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records failure to pay holiday entitlement and orders payment of £544 gross. | Upheld | — | £544 |
| Other | The judgment records failure to provide a written contract or statement of particulars contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awards £1868.97 gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,869 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,717
- 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.