Case 2303339/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ahimbisibwe v Strada Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303339/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ahimbisibwe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the Claimant's work activities involved the need for continuity of service in relation to residential institutions, so regulation 21(c)(i) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 applied and the regulation 10 daily rest right did not apply. It also found that the Respondent had allowed equivalent compensatory rest under regulation 24, including in the relevant working pattern before the dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not shown that the Respondent required him to work in contravention of the Working Time Regulations or to forgo rights under them. It found that the conversations on 28 October and 8 November 2023 were not refusals or proposals to refuse within section 101A(1)(a) or (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's explanation that the reason for dismissal was that the Claimant intentionally chose to sleep while on night duty, and found that the October and November conversations played no part in the dismissal. The Working Time Regulations claims and the automatic unfair dismissal claim were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim alleging breach of regulation 10 Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed because regulation 21(c)(i) applied and the right to daily rest under regulation 10 did not apply to the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim that the Respondent failed to allow an equivalent period of compensatory rest under regulation 24 Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 101A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, based on alleged proposed refusal to work contrary to or forgo rights under the Working Time Regulations, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- regulation 10 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 21(c)(i) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 24 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 101A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.