Case 2216907/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Omar v Burberry Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216907/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Omar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The claim had been the subject of an unless order dated 19 February 2025 requiring the claimant by 4:00 pm on 27 February 2025 to set out the basis on which he said he had been treated less favourably on account of a specified disability.
The claimant did not provide the required information. The tribunal recorded that he had been required to identify the disability relied on, the acts or omissions said to amount to less favourable treatment, when those matters occurred, who was responsible, and whether he relied on named comparators or a hypothetical comparator.
Because that information was not supplied, the tribunal struck out the direct disability discrimination claim under Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and stated that the claim was not capable of being reinstituted. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant did not comply with the unless order dated 19 February 2025 requiring particulars of the basis of the claim by 4:00 pm on 27 February 2025. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 38(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.