Case 2602723/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Osman v Sofidel UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602723/2018
- Decision date
- 3 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Osman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Butler sat alone in Leicester on 14 October 2019. The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant was still employed by the Respondent, and for that reason it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract and redundancy payment. Those claims were dismissed.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant confirmed the sex discrimination claim had been brought in error. That claim was dismissed on withdrawal at the hearing. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the Claimant was still employed by the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the Claimant was still employed by the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the Claimant was still employed by the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Claimant confirmed at the hearing that the sex discrimination claim had been brought in error and withdrew it. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.