Case 2500778/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Mohammed v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500778/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Middlesbrough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Mohammed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 20 March 2025, the Tribunal considered the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and disability discrimination against Amazon UK Services Limited.
The Tribunal struck out those complaints under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1). It recorded that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order, that the claim had not been actively pursued, and that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not record any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c), (d) and (e). | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c), (d) and (e). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c), (d) and (e). | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(e)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.