Case 3303542/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Bah v SGUK Ltd t/a Security Guards UK (in liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 3303542/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Bah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge R Lewis entered judgment on 24 September 2019 under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been filed. On the information before the tribunal, the claim succeeded.
The order did not determine compensation. It stated that the compensation to which the claimant was entitled would be assessed at a remedy hearing. The respondent was also barred from participating further in the proceedings, except to ask for written reasons for the judgment or order, or to request reconsideration.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment order states that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 and that compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing; it does not break out this head separately. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment order states that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 and that compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing; it does not break out this head separately. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment order states that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 and that compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing; it does not break out this head separately. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment order states that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 and that compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing; it does not break out this head separately. | Upheld | — | — |
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.