Case 3200632/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Montaque v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200632/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elgot
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Montaque
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing before Employment Judge Elgot sitting alone, the Claimant withdrew claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract for failure to pay notice pay, and failure to pay holiday pay. The Tribunal dismissed those withdrawn claims.
The judgment recorded that the claim of direct race discrimination remained in the proceedings. No remedy was awarded and no findings on the merits of the race discrimination claim were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was described as failure to pay notice pay. It was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The failure to pay holiday pay claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the direct race discrimination claim remains in the proceedings; it was not determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
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.