Case 2600653/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hammoudi First v Fortune Hotel (uk) Limited & Others Second Respondent: Belmont Hotel (Leicester) Ltd Third Respondent: The Belmont Hotel — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600653/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hammoudi First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a short rule 52 withdrawal judgment in case 2600653/2019. The tribunal recorded that the proceedings against the First Respondent, Fortune Hotel (UK) Limited, and the Third Respondent, The Belmont Hotel, were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
The judgment does not contain any findings on the merits of the underlying dispute, does not identify any monetary award, and does not set out any legal tests or panel members. The order is limited to recording the withdrawal disposal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a short rule 52 withdrawal order. It records that the proceedings against the First and Third Respondents were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The pleaded claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing because the judgment text does not separately identify the cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a short rule 52 withdrawal order. It records that the proceedings against the First and Third Respondents were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The pleaded claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing because the judgment text does not separately identify the cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.