Case 3301571/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abubakarr Koroma v Rendall and Rittner Operations Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301571/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abubakarr Koroma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy deposit order dated 13 December 2024, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a total deposit of £50 in relation to the allegation that he suffered a detriment because of his role as an employee representative in respect of a TUPE transfer. The order required payment within 14 days. By 27 December 2024, the deposit had not been paid.
Applying rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal struck out the complaint subject to the deposit. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims continue. No other substantive findings or remedy awards are recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The complaint under section 47 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, concerning detriment to the claimant in his role as an employee representative in respect of a TUPE transfer, was struck out under rule 40(4) because the £50 deposit ordered on 13 December 2024 had not been paid by 27 December 2024. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continue. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.