Case 2404558/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Saeed Respondent 1: Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited Respondent 2: Mitie Limited Respondent 3: Mitie Security Limited v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2404558/2019
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Saeed Respondent 1: Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited Respondent 2: Mitie Limited Respondent 3: Mitie Security Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by telephone before Employment Judge Shotter on 27 July 2020, held that the first respondent, Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited, was not the claimant's employer. That finding disposed of the claims brought against the first respondent.
As a result, the claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), unpaid accrued holiday pay and unlawful deduction of wages were dismissed against the first respondent. The judgment does not record any monetary award or separate remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed against the first respondent because the tribunal found that Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited was not the claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed against the first respondent; the judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal (notice pay). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed against the first respondent as unpaid accrued holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed against the first respondent as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. | 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.