Case 1805819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Abdalaziz v Scott-Hamlyn Ltd t/a Delmont Hotel — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805819/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Abdalaziz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 24 March 2023. The tribunal first confirmed that the respondent was correctly named as Scott-Hamlyn Ltd t/a Delmont Hotel. It then struck out the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages because it had been presented outside the applicable time limits and there was no basis for finding that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time.
The claimant had ticked boxes on the ET1 indicating race and religion discrimination, but the tribunal found that no such complaints were articulated or discernible. In any event, any discrimination complaints were presented out of time and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. Those complaints were therefore also struck out, with the tribunal recording that it had no jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of an unauthorised deduction from wages was struck out because it was brought outside the applicable time limits and the tribunal had no basis to find that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The ET1 ticked race discrimination, but no complaint was articulated or discernible. The tribunal held that any such complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The ET1 ticked religion discrimination, but no complaint was articulated or discernible. The tribunal held that any such complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.