Case 3302830/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Gould, Mr M Cox, Mr I Buyukarslan and others v Sullivan Bus & Coach Ltd and 2 others — 2026

Case reference: 3302830/2025
Decision date: 17 July 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dick Representation
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 31 August 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr R Gould, Mr M Cox, Mr I Buyukarslan and others

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal allowed claims 3302830/2025 and 6003621/2025 to proceed. It found that presenting them in time had not been reasonably practicable and that they were presented within such further time as was reasonable. The protective award claims brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded because Sullivan Bus and Coach Limited had not adequately complied with section 188. Each claimant in List 1 was awarded 90 days' remuneration for a protected period beginning on 2 August 2024, the date of the first dismissal covered by the complaint. The judgment did not state the cash value of those awards.

Ibrahim Buyukarslan's unauthorised deductions complaint was well founded. Following a relevant transfer from Go Ahead in 2018, Sullivan Bus and Coach Limited did not pay him in line with his contractual terms. The tribunal awarded £12,114.07 for the two years ending with the termination of his employment: £11,094.07 for inflation-linked pay increases and £1,020 for weekend-shift and overtime bonuses. Buyukarslan was made responsible for any tax or National Insurance due.

Jerry Antwi Agyekum and Itai Machaka succeeded in their breach-of-contract claims concerning notice pay. They received net damages of £846.78 and £4,033.36 respectively. Their unfair dismissal complaints were also well founded; the tribunal found that they had been dismissed unfairly for redundancy and made basic awards of £1,344.75 and £6,983.13 respectively. No compensatory awards were recorded, and the recoupment regulations did not apply.

Unspecified remaining claims by the claimants named in the judgment and List 1 were dismissed upon withdrawal. Except for the claimants in List 2, remaining claims under the listed multiple case numbers were struck out because they were no longer being actively pursued. The List 2 claims were left for a future hearing. The judgment stated no aggregate monetary total, and the cash values of the 90-day protective awards were not given.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective awards under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Each List 1 claimant was awarded 90 days' remuneration from 2 August 2024; no cash amounts were stated.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Award to Ibrahim Buyukarslan, comprising £11,094.07 for inflation-linked pay increases and £1,020 for weekend-shift and overtime bonuses.	Upheld	—	£12,114
Breach of contract	Combined net notice-pay damages: £846.78 for Jerry Antwi Agyekum and £4,033.36 for Itai Machaka.	Upheld	—	£4,880
Unfair dismissal	Combined basic awards: £1,344.75 for Jerry Antwi Agyekum and £6,983.13 for Itai Machaka. The judgment records no compensatory awards.	Upheld	—	£8,328
Other	Unspecified remaining claims by the claimants named in the judgment and List 1 were dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	Except for the List 2 claimants, unspecified remaining claims under multiple numbers 3301986, 3301975, 3301695, 3301635 and 2300948 were struck out because they were no longer being actively pursued.

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.