Case 6003834/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Kennedy v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003834/2024
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Kennedy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Croydon on 28, 29 and 30 October 2025 before Employment Judge Leith. The respondent name was amended by consent to ISS Facility Services Limited. The written record states that the claimant was represented by Mr Smith and the respondent by Ms Franklin.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and constructive wrongful dismissal. The record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are included in the published record.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint; the written record states it failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons are included in this record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Constructive wrongful dismissal complaint; the written record states it failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons are included in this record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record says this complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.