Mrs P Ibhagbosoria v Represented by Ms R Tait Solicitor Greymate Care Ltd — 2026

Mrs P Ibhagbosoria succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Greymate Care Ltd. Her claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract were dismissed. She had worked for the respondent from March 2023 until her summary dismissal on 7 July 2025. The Tribunal found that conduct was the sole reason for dismissal, namely the respondent's belief that she had falsified care records. It rejected her argument that the reasons had been fabricated following disputes about mileage, pay and sponsorship.

The Tribunal found that the claimant was involved with three colleagues in recording visits to service user JB as completed when they had not attended. She knew from the meeting on 10 June 2025 that she had received a formal warning. On 16 June 2025 she recorded morning and evening care for another service user, CP, which she had not provided. She did not attend the morning visit; in the evening she drove to the property and rang the buzzer but did not enter. The Tribunal rejected her evidence that she had provided the recorded care and did not accept that the respondent had required those entries for mileage to be paid.

Applying section 98(4), the Burchell test and the band of reasonable responses, the Tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The investigations were limited, no written witness statements were taken, and relevant OnCare records, family correspondence and investigation reports were not supplied to the claimant. The earlier warning process lacked proper notification of the hearing and the right to be accompanied. Dr Onochie acted as investigator and joint decision-maker, although the Tribunal considered that the stages could have been separated despite the company's size. The dismissal hearing did not give proper consideration to the claimant's explanations, and neither the warning letter nor the dismissal letter informed her of a right of appeal.

The wages and contract claims failed because the claimant did not establish a contractual right to at least 39 paid hours each week. Her original employment documents left the weekly hours unspecified, and she was paid throughout for hours worked, which varied. The Tribunal found that the sponsorship certificate and later employment confirmation letters did not introduce the claimed minimum. It considered the parties' messages, the claimant's requests to change work arrangements and the absence of written complaints about a 39-hour minimum during employment. It also rejected the suggested alternative minimum of 35 hours and considered that, even if the claimed term had existed, her prolonged failure to challenge lower hours amounted to acquiescence in its breach.

The Tribunal considered the sponsorship minimum salary separately. It found that the correspondence supported an entitlement to a minimum annual salary of £20,960. The claimant's P60 for the year ending 5 April 2025 showed £20,730.25, but a claim on that basis had not been specifically pleaded or pursued at the hearing. Later payslips produced annualised earnings above the threshold. In the absence of adequate pleading and evidence, the Tribunal found no proven deduction or breach on this basis. It made no finding concerning the earlier tax year, for which the effect of absence and hospital treatment was unclear.