Case 2601840/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E S Owusu v Contract Security (UK) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601840/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E S Owusu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone in Leicester on 12 February 2024 and 6 March 2024. The tribunal decided two preliminary issues only. First, it found that Mr E S Owusu was an employee of Contract Security (UK) Ltd within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding meant he was entitled to pursue complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and holiday pay.
Second, the tribunal found that Mr Owusu had the qualifying period of service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment does not decide the substantive merits of any unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, or holiday pay complaint. It states that case management orders for the full merits hearing would be issued separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of the respondent within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so he was entitled to pursue his complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had the qualifying period of service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. The merits of any dismissal claim were not determined at this hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 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.