Case 3201643/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Islam Ms S Bacchus Mr S Fahid Mr D Liasedis v CyberSecurity 1 AB (publ) company number 556135-4811 and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201643/2020
- Decision date
- 12 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen QC
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms S Islam Ms S Bacchus Mr S Fahid Mr D Liasedis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Cyber 1 Security AB from the proceedings because it was not a legal entity, and it dismissed Darren Stilwell because he was not the employer of any claimant. It found that Ms Islam, Ms Bacchus and Mr Fahid were employees of Cyber Security 1 AB (publ), while Mr Liasedis was employed by Cognosec Limited, and it held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims notwithstanding Cyber Security 1 AB (publ) being in Swedish reconstruction because the reconstructor did not object and Swedish law did not require court or insolvency-practitioner consent. Ms Islam's unfair dismissal claim was identified but was not heard at this hearing and was left for later case management.
All four claimants were dismissed on 1 April 2020 for redundancy. The tribunal accepted the continuity of service set out in the 7 April 2020 letters for Ms Islam and Ms Bacchus, finding on the balance of probabilities that the relevant companies were associated through Kobus Paulson's part ownership and control and, in Ms Islam's case, that her contract expressly counted prior Securetrading service. It rejected reliance on the erroneous payslips and P45s, accepted that March 2020 pay, accrued holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay were outstanding, and noted that Ms Islam was also owed expenses.
For Ms Islam, the tribunal awarded £10,416.66 for unpaid March salary, £3,605.77 for accrued holiday, £25,000 for contractual notice pay, £3,675 redundancy pay and £258 expenses. It found that her contractual entitlement to notice was £31,250 gross for three months, but the tribunal's breach of contract jurisdiction capped the award at £25,000. Ms Bacchus was awarded £3,750 salary, £576.35 holiday pay, £4,326.90 notice pay and £2,625 redundancy pay; Mr Fahid was awarded £3,166.67 salary, £2,448.08 holiday pay, £1,461.54 notice pay and £1,575 redundancy pay; and Mr Liasedis was awarded £7,500 salary, £2,803.85 holiday pay, £7,500 notice pay and £1,837.50 redundancy pay. All sums were stated gross, and the tribunal noted that unpaid pension contribution claims were being pursued with the Pensions Regulator.
Claims and outcomes
13 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ms Islam: the unfair dismissal claim was not heard at this hearing; case management orders were to follow. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Islam against Cyber Security 1 AB (publ): unpaid March 2020 salary of £10,416.66 and accrued holiday entitlement of £3,605.77. | Upheld | — | £14,022 |
| Breach of contract | Ms Islam against Cyber Security 1 AB (publ): contractual notice pay of £25,000 awarded, with the tribunal finding the contractual entitlement was £31,250 gross for three months but applying the £25,000 tribunal cap, plus £258 unpaid expenses. | Upheld | — | £25,258 |
| Redundancy | Ms Islam against Cyber Security 1 AB (publ): redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,675 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Bacchus against Cyber Security 1 AB (publ): unpaid March 2020 salary of £3,750 and accrued holiday entitlement of £576.35. | Upheld | — | £4,326 |
| Breach of contract | Ms Bacchus against Cyber Security 1 AB (publ): contractual notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,327 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £82,526
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986
- section 231 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.