Case 1401029/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hadi Al Hassany v University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and 5 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401029/2018
- Decision date
- 9 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr J Shah, Ms G Mayo
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr A Hadi Al Hassany
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol on 2 to 5 December 2019 before Employment Judge Midgley, with Mr J Shah and Ms G Mayo sitting as the lay members. The judgment records that the claims were dismissed because the claimant withdrew them.
The written judgment does not set out any substantive findings on liability, evidence, or remedy because the claims did not proceed to a contested decision. It also records that, by consent, neither party pursued an application for costs against the other.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed on their withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed on their withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed on their withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed on their withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.