Case 1308699/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Nabil Bouzid v Verisure Services Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1308699/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr P Wilkinson, Mr A Moosa
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nabil Bouzid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Nabil Bouzid was fairly dismissed by Verisure Services (UK) Ltd, so his unfair dismissal complaint failed. It recorded that his notice period was two weeks and that he had not been paid for that period. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the complaint about the deduction from his final wages, which included notice pay.
The tribunal found that Bouzid was disabled by stress and anxiety from January 2024 and by left shoulder pain and stiffness from August 2022. The respondent had the requisite knowledge from those respective dates. It found that neck pain, tuberculosis and chronic fatigue syndrome did not amount to disabilities and that the respondent lacked the requisite knowledge of those conditions at any time. The reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment complaints were out of time; the tribunal also stated that they would have failed in any event. The discrimination arising from disability complaint failed.
The tribunal found no failure to calculate holiday pay correctly using basic pay for ten days of leave in January 2024 or for accrued annual leave on termination. The complaint about the calculation of nine days of holiday pay in August 2022 was out of time. There was no incorrect deduction concerning four days of holiday booked but cancelled in August 2023. Whether any holiday pay remained outstanding was not determined because that depended on the lawfulness of the deduction from final wages.
The complaints about commission earned on sales between August and December 2021 and SSP due from 8 April 2022 onwards were out of time and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The tribunal stated that they would also have failed in any event. It lacked jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim because Bouzid brought it while still employed. It also found no breach of contract concerning a company car, mileage or expenses for entering the clean air zone.
The judgment dismissed the claim overall and recorded no monetary award. It expressly left undetermined whether the £5,119.02 deduction from the final pay packet was lawful. The deduction was made to reimburse the employer for an overpayment of wages, and the tribunal stated that Bouzid would have to pursue that complaint in the civil courts.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaints were out of time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. It also stated that these complaints would have failed in any event. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The disability-related harassment complaints were out of time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. It also stated that these complaints would have failed in any event. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The calculation complaints concerning January 2024 leave and accrued leave on termination failed. The August 2022 calculation complaint was out of time. There was no incorrect deduction concerning four days of holiday booked but cancelled in August 2023. Whether any holiday pay remained outstanding was expressly not determined because it depended on the lawfulness of the final-wages deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.