Ajayi v Abu & Anor (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 3098 (QB) (01 December 2017)

Ajayi v Abu & Anor (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 3098 (QB) (01 December 2017)

The court found the claimant was a victim of trafficking, was not paid the National Minimum Wage, and was entitled to compensation for underpayment and breach of contract. The family worker exemption did not apply. The defendants' conduct did not amount to actionable harassment under the 1997 Act. The limitation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3098
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Rashida Abeje Ajayi; Defendant: Mr Joel Udukhokhe Abu; Defendant: Mrs Teresa Mojisola Abu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Human Trafficking, National Minimum Wage, Breach of Contract, Harassment, Limitation of Actions, Compensation for Trafficking Victims
Employment Law Human Rights Law Contract Law Tort Law Human Trafficking National Minimum Wage Breach of Contract Harassment +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Rashida Abeje Ajayi

Claimant

Mr Joel Udukhokhe Abu

Defendant

Mrs Teresa Mojisola Abu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a victim of trafficking under the Council of Europe Convention and UK law
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was paid less than the National Minimum Wage and entitled to compensation
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the claimant was a victim of trafficking, was not paid the National Minimum Wage, and was entitled to compensation for underpayment and breach of contract. The family worker exemption did not apply. The defendants' conduct did not amount to actionable harassment under the 1997 Act. The limitation period was extended due to the defendants' concealment of relevant facts. The claimant was awarded compensation for underpayment of wages and breach of contract, but not for harassment or psychiatric injury.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimant compensation for underpayment of National Minimum Wage for the relevant period
  • Defendants to pay claimant damages for breach of contract