Case 2502333/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U Aydin v STR Enterprises Limited t/a The Honest Lawyer Hotel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502333/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mrs L Jackson, Mr E Euers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr U Aydin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for hearing at Newcastle on 7 and 8 February 2022 before Employment Judge Martin, sitting with Mrs L Jackson and Mr E Euers. The claimant was Mr U Aydin and the respondent was STR Enterprises Limited t/a The Honest Lawyer Hotel. The listed complaints were unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
On the morning of the second day of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement through ACAS. The tribunal was notified of a COT3 settlement agreement. The judgment records that the claimant confirmed he was content for the claims to be dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal therefore did not determine the substance of either complaint. No liability findings or remedy awards were made, and the judgment simply disposes of the proceedings following the withdrawal prompted by the ACAS settlement.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was not determined on the merits. On the morning of the second day of the hearing the parties reached a settlement through ACAS, a COT3 was notified to the tribunal, and the claimant confirmed he was content for the claim to be dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was not determined on the merits. On the morning of the second day of the hearing the parties reached a settlement through ACAS, a COT3 was notified to the tribunal, and the claimant confirmed he was content for the claim to be dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
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.