Case 2303462/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr I. Chesher (2) Mr. O. Sibilev v Profile Security Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303462/2021
- Decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Sitting
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs. Grayson, Mr. Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr I. Chesher (2) Mr. O. Sibilev
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record is brief. It states that the case was heard at London South on 15, 16 and 17 November 2023 before Employment Judge Sudra sitting with Tribunal Members Mrs Grayson and Mr Khan. The Tribunal's unanimous decision was that the claimants' claims were not well founded and were dismissed.
The judgment itself does not set out the substantive factual findings or the individual claim labels. The public case listing identifies the matter as involving breach of contract and unfair dismissal, and the written record confirms only that all claims were dismissed.
The judgment also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not identify the individual claim labels, but the gov.uk listing for this case identifies breach of contract as one of the claims. The Tribunal recorded that the claimants' claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not identify the individual claim labels, but the gov.uk listing for this case identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claims. The Tribunal recorded that the claimants' claims were not well founded and were 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.