Case 2203220/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hasan v Dr C Hoffman and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203220/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr L Hasan
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 17 November 2021 before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone via CVP, the tribunal dealt with three linked claims numbered 2203220/2019, 2203545/2020 and 2200135/2020. In claim 2203220/2019, allegation 8.5 was struck out as against the Third Respondent and allegation 8.8 was struck out as against the First Respondent because the claimant had not paid earlier deposit orders made by EJ Walker. In claim 2203545/2020, allegations 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.13, 8.15 and 8.16 were struck out against the Fourth Respondent for the same reason.
In claim 2200135/2020, the tribunal struck out the complaints of detriment at subparagraphs 9(a) to (g). It held that those complaints were out of time, that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing why time should be extended, and that they were an abuse of process under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | In claim 2203220/2019, allegation 8.5 was struck out as against the Third Respondent and allegation 8.8 was struck out as against the First Respondent because the claimant had not paid earlier deposit orders made by EJ Walker. The judgment does not identify the underlying statutory head in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
| Other | In claim 2203545/2020, allegations 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.13, 8.15 and 8.16 were struck out against the Fourth Respondent for non-payment of deposit orders. The judgment does not identify the underlying statutory head in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
| Other | In claim 2200135/2020, the complaints of detriment at subparagraphs 9(a) to (g) were struck out because they were presented out of time, the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing why time should be extended, and the complaints were an abuse of process under Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- abuse of process
- out of time
- non-payment of deposit orders
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.