Case 2224559/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A Bin Ramli v Maybank Securities (London) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2224559/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M A Bin Ramli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025, Employment Judge Davidson found that Mr M A Bin Ramli was not an employee of Maybank Securities (London) Limited. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the complaints of unlawful deduction from wages, failure to provide a statement of main terms of employment, equal pay, automatic unfair dismissal and breach of the Working Time Regulations because it lacked jurisdiction to determine them.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 for lack of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded at this stage.
The claims for race discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation were allowed to proceed. The judgment records that a separate case management order would be sent out in respect of those claims.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint for failure to provide a statement of main terms of employment dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Equal pay | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 dismissed because the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other |
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.