Case 6040796/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Ohaka v Care Solutions Recruitment Agency Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6040796/2026
- Decision date
- 8 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms F Ohaka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Ohaka claimed unpaid wages, holiday pay and a redundancy payment after Care Solutions Recruitment Agency Ltd went into liquidation on 21 May 2025. The tribunal considered whether she had been an employee, as she sought payment from the National Insurance Fund through the Redundancy Payments Service. It found that she had worked for the agency as a support worker from 12 February 2022 until 30 March 2025 but was an agency worker, not an employee.
Her payslips and an agreement opting out of the 48-hour weekly working limit referred to her as an employee. The tribunal gave greater weight to her contract, headed “Terms of Engagement of a Contractor”. It said she could refuse jobs, the agency did not have to find work for her, and she would not be paid when she did not work. The tribunal also found that the agency did not exercise the level of day-to-day management or supervision usually present in an employment relationship.
The tribunal applied section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that Ms Ohaka was not entitled to government compensation following the agency's insolvency because she was not an employee. It made no monetary award. In view of communication difficulties caused by poor sound during the video hearing, the judge said Ms Ohaka could seek reconsideration within 14 days if she identified additional information that might show she had been an employee.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records an unpaid wages claim but does not expressly label its outcome. It found that Ms Ohaka was an agency worker rather than an employee and was not eligible to recover unpaid wages from the Redundancy Payments Service. No sum was awarded. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a holiday pay claim but does not give a separate dispositive order or address its value. The tribunal's decision was that Ms Ohaka was an agency worker rather than an employee and was not eligible for government insolvency compensation. No sum was awarded. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records a redundancy payment claim but does not expressly label its outcome. It found that Ms Ohaka was an agency worker rather than an employee and was not eligible for government insolvency compensation. No sum was awarded. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 182 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.