Case 1302099/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Bellouki v Fouad Barber — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302099/2019
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton No
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Bellouki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Birmingham by telephone on 22 September 2022 before Employment Judge Broughton. The judgment records that there had been no responses to correspondence for a year or more and that there were no attendances on the day of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment does not identify this head of claim individually, but states that all claims were struck out after no responses to correspondence for a year or more and no attendance on 22 September 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment does not identify this head of claim individually, but states that all claims were struck out after no responses to correspondence for a year or more and no attendance on 22 September 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment does not identify this head of claim individually, but states that all claims were struck out after no responses to correspondence for a year or more and no attendance on 22 September 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment does not identify this head of claim individually, but states that all claims were struck out after no responses to correspondence for a year or more and no attendance on 22 September 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
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.