Case 3302261/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ahmed Basultan v Avalon Cleaning Systems Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302261/2020
- Decision date
- 18 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ahmed Basultan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 17 and 18 August 2021 before Employment Judge G Tobin, the tribunal held that Mr Ahmed Basultan had been constructively unfairly dismissed within section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. The written judgment records that finding as the outcome of the unfair dismissal claim, but it does not set out any monetary award.
The tribunal also rejected the claim that Mr Basultan had been constructively dismissed in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The judgment notes that the parties had agreed settlement, so the case was stayed until 9 September 2021 to allow the settlement to be implemented, and if neither party wrote to the tribunal by 8 September 2021 the case would be treated as concluded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 7(1) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.