Case 6009169/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A O Forkuoh v DRS Kent Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009169/2025
- Decision date
- 11 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kight Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A O Forkuoh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints about working 12-hour shifts without breaks and about not receiving extra days off when he worked bank holidays. The Tribunal considered the claimant's contract, holiday records, evidence about working arrangements, and evidence from the claimant and the respondent's Recovery Operations Manager.
On the bank holiday issue, the Tribunal found that the contract entitled the claimant to take another day off instead of a bank holiday worked, not to additional holiday beyond his annual entitlement. It found that when the claimant worked bank holidays he was provided with alternative dates and had taken his contractual annual entitlement.
On rest breaks, the Tribunal found there was no evidence that the claimant expressly asked to take a break and was refused, or that the respondent's arrangements prevented him from taking an uninterrupted 20-minute break away from his workstation. It found that the respondent had put in place sufficient arrangements to enable rest breaks, and both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim concerned alleged contractual entitlement to additional holiday for bank holidays worked. The Tribunal found no breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim concerned alleged refusal to permit daily rest breaks under Regulation 30(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal found the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Regulation 12(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 30(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Grange
- Snook v London and West Riding Investment Ltd
- Harlow v Artemis International Corporation Ltd
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (No.1)
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.