Case 2411921/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdullahi Farah Mukhtar 1st v Envirostaff Limited 2nd Respondent: Red Security Solutions Limited 3rd Respondent: I A M Security Limited 4th Respondent: Mr R Kennedy — 2019
- Case reference
- 2411921/2018
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdullahi Farah Mukhtar 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Abdullahi Farah Mukhtar was an employee of the third respondent only, for the period 23 January 2018 to 26 March 2018. It found that he was not an employee of the first, second or fourth respondent.
The judgment records that the claimant's £1,600 unlawful deduction claim, said to relate to his March 2018 salary, was to proceed to a hearing on 14 October 2019, as was his claim that he had not received the national minimum wage for the hours worked in January, February and March 2018. The separate £2,000 unlawful deduction claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The claimant's unlawful religious discrimination claim against the fourth respondent was dismissed because it had been lodged outwith the statutory limitation period and was not brought within such other period as was just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have the required continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant withdrew the £2,000 unlawful deduction claim, and the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed because it was lodged outwith the statutory limitation period and was not admitted as just and equitable under s.123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the required continuous service for unfair dismissal under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.108 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.