Case 3200702/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Saphinia Owusu Bempah v ABM Aviation UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200702/2023
- Decision date
- 20 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smyth Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Saphinia Owusu Bempah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 20 September 2023 before Employment Judge Smyth, the tribunal determined a single unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr Saphinia Owusu Bempah against ABM Aviation UK Limited. The judgment states that the respondent did not unlawfully dismiss the claimant.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing the claim and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. On that basis, it made a costs order against the claimant in favour of the respondent.
The costs were summarily assessed at £7,500. No separate compensatory, basic award, or other compensatory element was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent did not unlawfully dismiss the claimant. It also found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs, summarily assessed at £7,500. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,500
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.