Case 3200700/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Carabott v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2024

Case reference: 3200700/2024
Decision date: 24 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Elliott Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms T Jansen, Ms A Berry

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Carabott

Respondent

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim. It noted non-compliance and late preparation issues on both sides, but allowed the hearing to proceed.

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by Adecco and was assigned to provide services to the respondent. It found that he was not an employee of the respondent, that there was no dismissal by the respondent, and that Adecco remained responsible for further work and pay-related matters.

On that basis, the notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal and the remaining claims for unfair dismissal, holiday pay, written reasons for dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, trade union detriment or dismissal, and redundancy payment failed and were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Holiday pay	The tribunal found the respondent had no contractual responsibility for the claimant's holiday pay.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim was unparticularised and not dealt with in evidence; the tribunal also found payment of wages was the responsibility of Adecco.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The claim for notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and did not have the right to claim ordinary or automatically unfair dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—
Trade union	The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent, that there was no dismissal by the respondent, and that he could not pursue the detriment claim under section 146(5A) TULRCA.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The claimant brought a redundancy payment claim. The judgment states that redundancy payment rights apply to employees and that the claims failed because the claimant was not an employee of the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

15 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.