Case 2301575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ahmadi v K4 Security Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301575/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ahmadi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Abbott sat alone at London South Employment Tribunal on 10 October 2024. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have at least two years' continuous service before dismissal and no potentially automatically unfair reason for dismissal had been identified. On that basis, the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
The Tribunal also struck out all of the claimant's other complaints. Those complaints were identified in the claim form, then clarified in the claimant's letters of 24 June 2024 and 22 July 2024 and orally at the hearing. The Tribunal found that none of them were recognisable legal claims within its jurisdiction. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant did not have at least 2 years' continuous service before dismissal and no potentially automatically unfair reason for dismissal was identified, so the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | All other complaints identified in the claim form, as clarified in the claimant's letters of 24 June 2024 and 22 July 2024 and orally at the hearing, were struck out because they were not recognisable legal claims within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
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.