Case 2206568/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Peter Lakatika First v Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd Second Respondent: Mitie Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206568/2021
- Decision date
- 15 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bunting Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Peter Lakatika First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at London Central on 13 July 2022 before Employment Judge Bunting, the tribunal determined Peter Lakatika’s claims against Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd and Mitie Ltd. The judgment records that the claim for unpaid holiday pay was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for breach of the TUPE Regulations 2006, recording that it was not well founded. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s full reasons, because the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment. The record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Claim for breach of the TUPE Regulations 2006 was found not well founded and dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.