Case 2200040/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L El Khaoudi El Omari v Camden ExpressLimited — 2021

Case reference: 2200040/2021
Decision date: 30 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Glennie

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L El Khaoudi El Omari

Respondent

Camden ExpressLimited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment on liability. The respondent, Camden Express Limited, failed to present a response to the claim. On that basis, Employment Judge Glennie recorded that the following complaints were well-founded: unfair dismissal, including automatically unfair dismissal; breach of contract, described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal; and unlawful deduction from wages.

The judgment did not set out a contested evidential analysis or apply a named legal test. It simply determined liability on the basis of the respondent's عدم response under the Rule 21 procedure. No remedy was fixed in this decision.

The tribunal directed that the claimant's remedy would be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing listed for 3 August 2021 by video, with 4 and 5 August 2021 reserved and then cancelled by the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Rule 21 liability judgment. The respondent did not present a response, and the tribunal recorded this complaint as well-founded; remedy was left to a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Recorded in the judgment as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal). The tribunal found the complaint well-founded under Rule 21; remedy was deferred to a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal recorded this complaint as well-founded in the Rule 21 liability judgment. No monetary figure was set in this decision.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.