The High Court rendered a significant judgement (one which explores the intersection of tort law and statutory employment rights), based especially on the National Minimum Wage (NMW) Act 1998 and National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Facts:
The claimant was born in the Philippines in 1990 and went to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the employ of a UAE diplomat and his family. However, in 2013, the claimant was relocated to London to work for the diplomat and his family.
Although she had previously worked for the family in the UAE, her three-month period of employment in London involved extreme exploitation and isolation. The claimant had no social support or family in the UK and was forced to perform child care and domestic services under a regime of forced labour.
The factual findings established that the claimant was forced to work an average of 17.75 hours per day, starting at 5 am and often continuing until 11 pm, with no breaks for lunch, rest, or even a day off. Her movements were strictly controlled, as the family retained custody of her passport and frequently locked her inside the flat when they were away. She was further isolated from the outside world by being denied access to a UK SIM card and the household Wi-Fi. Her compensation was almost non-existent, receiving only a few hundred pounds in pay during her entire stay, a figure far below the legal NMW.
In addition to the physical confinement and labour exploitation, the claimant was subjected to verbal abuse, threats, and inadequate food. The competent authority eventually concluded in 2014 that she had been a victim of human trafficking, and she was granted leave to remain in the UK in 2015. These conditions resulted in significant long-term harm – specifically a diagnosis of moderately severe PTSD.
Decision:
The High Court awarded over £146,000 in damages, although the final total remains pending a secondary calculation for loss of earnings. Because the defendant failed to participate in the proceedings, the Court granted a “default” assessment of damages based on the claimant’s evidence.
The Judge awarded two distinct sums for the non-financial impact of the slavery, including £85,000 for false imprisonment and injury to feelings, and £35,000 for psychiatric injury. Beyond the physical and mental trauma, the Court ordered payment for financial losses and the defendant’s conduct, including £15,000 in exemplary damages. This is a rare “punitive” award, one intended to punish the defendant for a “cynical disregard” for the claimant’s rights and for human exploitation for financial advantage.
Implications:
This case reinforces the trend of applying Vento awards to modern slavery and human trafficking cases. This means that sub-clinical distress is now firmly litigable in forced labour cases, often reaching the highest band of compensation.
While the NMW Act 1998 allows for a “current rate” uplift (i.e., paying outstanding compensation at today’s higher wage rates) in a standard Employment Tribunal, the Judge ruled that this does not automatically apply to a claim brought in tort. If a claimant sues for “servitude” or “negligence” rather than a straight breach of contract, they may only be entitled to the wage rates that existed at the time the work was done. This highlights a strategic choice between pursuing a statutory claim (i.e., for higher money) or a tort claim (for general damages such as PTSD).
Moreover, for employers, in cases of severe harassment or abuse, the financial liability for “loss of earnings” can extend far beyond the period of employment, as the psychological damage itself becomes a valid barrier to re-employment.
