Case 2500179/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Doutoum v Asda Stores Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500179/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard Appearances
- Venue
- In private and
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Doutoum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, redundancy payment and unpaid wages. The respondent denied each of those claims and requested further information from the claimant.
The Tribunal ordered the claimant to provide the requested further information on 3 April 2024 and sent a follow-up letter on 8 May 2024, but there was no response. On 5 June 2024 the Tribunal warned the claimant that the claim was at risk of being struck out because it was not being actively pursued and gave him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing by 11 June 2024.
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 12 June 2024, did not answer a telephone call from the Tribunal, and had not made written representations or requested a hearing. Employment Judge Legard was satisfied that correspondence had been sent to the address provided by the claimant and that the claim had not been actively pursued, so the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) of the ET Rules of Procedure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was part of the claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was part of the claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was part of the claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unpaid wages claim was part of the claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the ET Rules of Procedure
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.