Case 2302333/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Saidi Ali Ibrahim v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302333/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Apted Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Saidi Ali Ibrahim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented his ET1 on 2 July 2021 without an ACAS early conciliation certificate and had ticked that ACAS did not have power to conciliate on some or all of the claim. Early conciliation began on 15 July 2021 and the certificate was issued on 26 August 2021.
The tribunal found that the claim had not complied with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 when it was presented. It held that the later provision of an ACAS certificate did not cure the original procedural irregularity, applying Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The claimant accepted in evidence that he had been paid notice pay and accrued but untaken holiday pay. He also confirmed that his substantive claim was for damages for an injury sustained at work, which the tribunal found was not within the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for unpaid notice pay was dismissed under section 18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. The claimant also accepted he had been paid notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed under section 18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. The claimant also accepted he had been paid accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant clarified that his claim was for damages for injuries sustained at work resulting in back pain, stress, anxiety and depression. The tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction to award damages for injuries sustained at work. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 8 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 6 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 18A(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd 2022 EAT 61
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.