Case 2300291/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Elasar v Casual Dining Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300291/2019
- Decision date
- 24 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Elasar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal on 24 September 2019 before Employment Judge Ferguson sitting alone. The claimant, Mr A Elasar, appeared in person and the respondent, Casual Dining Group Ltd, was represented by counsel.
The judgment states that all of the complaints under case number 2300291/2019 were dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. The decision therefore records no determination on the substantive merits of the complaints.
The record notes that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not specify the complaint types in the text provided; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category 'Public Interest Disclosure' and the case context. The Tribunal dismissed all complaints because it had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out the claim label in the text provided; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category 'Unfair Dismissal' and the case context. The Tribunal dismissed all complaints because it had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.