Case 2204255/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A L Mohamed Bayoumi v The Berkeley Hotel Limited Date: 15 June 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204255/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M A L Mohamed Bayoumi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge A James, sitting alone, struck out all of Mr M A L Mohamed Bayoumi’s disability discrimination claims under ss. 13, 15, 20 and 26 Equality Act 2010 because the claimant had failed to comply with the tribunal’s orders. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal applied Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. No further substantive findings on the discrimination allegations were made in this decision, and no monetary award was recorded.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deduction of wages claims were not determined at this hearing. They were allowed to proceed and were made the subject of separate case management orders. The written record also notes that oral reasons were given and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | All of the claimant’s disability discrimination claims under ss. 13, 15, 20 and 26 Equality Act 2010 were struck out for failure to comply with tribunal orders, under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.