Claimant v Guarding UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. The judgment is silent on the specific reasoning but the claim was well-founded, indicating the respondent failed to establish a fair reason or follow a fair procedure under ERA 1996.
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under ERA 1996 section 163 which the respondent had failed to pay. This indicates the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and the claimant had sufficient qualifying service.
The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 April 2024 to 19 April 2024, contrary to ERA 1996 sections 13 and 23. The respondent failed to pay wages properly due during this period.
Facts
Mr Waheed was employed by Guarding UK Limited in a security role until his dismissal on 19 April 2024. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy payment, and unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 to 19 April 2024. The case was heard over two days in Birmingham with the claimant representing himself and the respondent represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal found all three claims well-founded. The dismissal was unfair, the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment which had not been paid, and there were unauthorised wage deductions during the final weeks of employment. The case was listed for a remedy hearing.
Practical note
This case demonstrates that even when a dismissal is by reason of redundancy, an employer must still follow proper procedures to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal, and must pay both statutory redundancy payments and all wages due up to the termination date.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1306088/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No