Case 2204938/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Camara v Hard Rock Cafe UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204938/2019
- Decision date
- 28 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Camara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr I Camara, had been ordered at a preliminary hearing on 30 April 2020 to pay three deposits of £25 within 42 days. The judgment records that he failed to pay those deposits.
As a result, the tribunal struck out three claims under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013: the claim for statutory sick pay for the period from 16 August 2019 onwards, the claim of sexual harassment by bar staff at the Piccadilly branch, and the claim of race discrimination by senior management at the Piccadilly branch.
The judgment states that all other claims were to proceed as listed on the agreed list of issues attached to the case management order made by Employment Judge Isaacson on 28 July 2020. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for statutory sick pay for the period from 16 August 2019 onwards was struck out because the claimant did not pay three ordered deposits of £25 within 42 days after the preliminary hearing on 30 April 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Claim described as sexual harassment by bar staff at the Piccadilly branch was struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of deposits. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim described as race discrimination by senior management at the Piccadilly branch was struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of deposits. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals 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.