Case 2306275/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Salah Boulebnane v Gather and Gather Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2306275/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Salah Boulebnane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote audio-only hearing on 13 May 2022 before Employment Judge Ferguson, the tribunal recorded that Mr Boulebnane withdrew the breach of contract claim for notice pay and the redundancy payment claim. The judgment states that both claims were dismissed following that withdrawal.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints of race and religious discrimination other than the allegation that the dismissal itself was an act of race and/or religious discrimination, because it did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints. A separate complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The written order records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay; the judgment states it was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states this claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | All complaints of race discrimination other than the dismissal allegation were dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | All complaints of religious discrimination other than the dismissal allegation were dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure was dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | 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.