Case 2401084/2024 · Employment Tribunal
M Z Bedoui v Greene King Retail Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401084/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Z Bedoui
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 13 February 2025, Employment Judge Eeley struck out the claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages. The judgment states that both claims were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
No substantive liability findings or remedy assessment were recorded in the written judgment. The decision was given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this claim as 'unauthorised deductions from wages' and struck it out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.