Case 2401742/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person Interpreter: Mr F Qasem (Arabic speaking) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401742/2020
- Decision date
- 3 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person Interpreter: Mr F Qasem (Arabic speaking) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Johnson, sitting alone, considered the claim form presented by Mr H Nazzal against Amazon UK Services Limited at a hearing on 1 December 2020. The judgment held that the form contained a substantial defect under Rule 12(1)(c) because it did not include an early conciliation number, and a further substantial defect under Rule 12(1)(d) because it stated that an early conciliation exemption applied when no exemption did apply.
In consequence, the tribunal stated that the claim must be rejected under Rule 12(2) and that the claim form should be returned to the claimant with a notice of rejection and information about reconsideration under Rule 12(3). The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not determine any substantive employment claim. It rejected the claim form under Rule 12 because it was not accompanied by an early conciliation number and wrongly stated that an early conciliation exemption applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 12(1)(c)
- Rule 12(1)(d)
- Rule 12(2)
- Rule 12(3)
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.