Case 2404895/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Khan v Capricorn Security Group — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404895/2019
- Decision date
- 11 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, before Employment Judge Warren sitting alone on 16 August 2019, heard two related Working Time Regulations claims. The respondent did not attend. The first claimant, Mr R Sharif, succeeded on his claim for untaken annual leave: the tribunal found that he had accrued two days of untaken leave and awarded him compensation of £214.50 under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The second claimant, Mr D Khan, did not succeed. The tribunal dismissed his claim because, on its calculation, he had not accrued any untaken unpaid annual leave. The written judgment records only those findings and the resulting award to Mr Sharif.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that Mr R Sharif had accrued two days of untaken leave and awarded compensation of £214.50 under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £215 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal dismissed Mr D Khan's claim because, on its calculation, he had not accrued any untaken unpaid annual leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £215
- across all upheld claims
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.