Case 4116438/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4116438/2018 Miss M Ibrahim v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4116438/2018
- Decision date
- 8 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4116438/2018 Miss M Ibrahim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints were unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and failure to supply a statement of employment particulars. It entered judgment that those complaints succeeded.
The claim form had been sent to the respondent on 27 August 2018. The respondent was required under Rule 16 to enter a response within 28 days but failed to do so.
The Employment Judge decided that, on the available material, liability could properly be determined without a hearing under Rule 21. Remedy was not determined in the judgment and was reserved for a later hearing before an Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded under a Rule 21 judgment, with remedy reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint succeeded under a Rule 21 judgment, with remedy reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal described this complaint as failure to supply statement of employment particulars. No more specific locked claim type is available, and remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.