Case 3205424/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bah v Atalian Servest Security Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205424/2022
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hook Representation
- Venue
- London East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Bah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London East Employment Tribunal on 31 March 2023, Employment Judge Hook recorded that Mr C Bah's holiday pay claim had been withdrawn during the hearing. The judgment states that claim was dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent's employer's contract claim was withdrawn following its decisions on the claimant's claims and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay and failure to provide written particulars of employment were not well founded and were dismissed. No monetary award was made and the judgment does not record any separate remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the holiday pay claim was withdrawn during the course of the hearing and is dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refers to this as a claim for 'constructive unfair dismissal' and says it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay; the judgment says it was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment; the judgment says it was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's employer's contract claim was withdrawn following the tribunal's decisions on the claimant's claims and is dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.