Case 2200242/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Al-Hussaini v Unite the Union — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200242/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Al-Hussaini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was presented on 23 January 2020 and made complaints of discrimination on grounds of race and religion or belief. The claim arose from events between July 2019 and January 2020. Hearings listed for September 2020 and September 2021 were postponed on grounds of the Claimant's ill health, and the claim was stayed until 31 January 2022.
The Respondent applied to strike out the claim on 27 September 2022. The Claimant's solicitors accepted that the claim had not been actively pursued and provided medical evidence stating that the Claimant was not fit to attend a hearing and was very unlikely to improve sufficiently in the future to make decisions about the case and give clear instructions.
The Tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It noted the time elapsed since the 2019 events, the likely further delay before any hearing, the likely effect on witness recollections, and the medical evidence about the Claimant's ability to participate. Exercising its discretion, the Tribunal struck out the claim while noting that this would deprive the Claimant of a trial on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaint was struck out under rule 37; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The religion or belief discrimination complaint was struck out under rule 37; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure
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.