Case 3301282/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Jedlovsky v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301282/2021
- Decision date
- 29 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Jedlovsky
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the respondent's applications to strike out claims or make deposit orders. The claimant's representative confirmed that the unauthorised deductions complaints were withdrawn, and those complaints were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal did not strike out the remaining claims and did not make deposit orders. It accepted the claimant's account that he had not intended to withdraw the allegation that dismissal was discriminatory, noting the language barrier and absence of an interpreter at earlier stages, and directed that discriminatory dismissal be added to the list of issues.
The tribunal found that the documentary material relied on by the respondent did not establish that the remaining claims had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success. It stated that matters including the decision-makers' motivations, their knowledge, the treatment of others, and the unfair dismissal process required evidence at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints alleged unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent's application referred to unpaid wages including holiday pay; the claimant's representative confirmed withdrawal of the unauthorised deductions complaints. The truncated text does not provide a final merits determination. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused to strike out the remaining claims or make a deposit order; this was not a final merits outcome. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out or make a deposit order on the race discrimination claim, including the allegation that dismissal was discriminatory. This was not a final merits outcome. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The respondent sought a deposit order in respect of harassment. The tribunal refused strike out or deposit orders on the remaining claims; this was not a final merits outcome. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 39(1)
- Rule 51
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- band of reasonable responses
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.