Case 3311594/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v T.S.S. (Total Security Services) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311594/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms H Umerah, succeeded on a breach of contract claim against T.S.S. (Total Security Services) Limited. Employment Judge Postle found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant her full notice pay, and that the balance due was £208.84. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay that sum in breach of contract.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had spent a considerable time preparing the proceedings and that, had the respondent discharged its obligation, that preparation would not have been necessary. On that basis, and under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal made a preparation time order for 10 hours and ordered the respondent to pay an additional £400.
No other claims are recorded in the judgment text. The decision was given orally at the hearing, with written reasons not provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract for failing to pay the claimant's full notice pay and ordered payment of the balance due, stated as £208.84. It also made a preparation time order for 10 hours and ordered an additional £400, but that was a separate order rather than part of the breach of contract sum. | Upheld | — | £209 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £609
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.