Case 1306088/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Waheed v Guarding UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306088/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Waheed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 28 and 29 July 2025, Employment Judge Kenward sitting alone determined liability in Mr M Waheed's claims against Guarding UK Limited. The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also held that Mr Waheed's complaint that he was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which had not been paid by the respondent, was well-founded and succeeded.
In addition, the tribunal found that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 April 2024 to 19 April 2024, brought under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment was limited to liability and recorded that the case would be listed for a further hearing to determine remedy if the parties were unable to agree it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and successful. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claim for a statutory redundancy payment under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 163 well-founded and successful. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 April 2024 to 19 April 2024 well-founded and successful. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 163
- Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 13 and 23
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.