Case 3200208/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hadj Rabia v Vision Redbridge Culture and Leisure Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200208/2020
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr P Rose, Mr K Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hadj Rabia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre on 21, 22 and 23 September 2021 before Employment Judge B Elgot, with lay members Mr P Rose and Mr K Adkin. The claimant was Mr M Hadj Rabia and the respondent was Vision Redbridge Culture and Leisure Ltd.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal. It also dismissed the claimant's claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, which alleged that he had suffered detriment on the ground that he made protected disclosures.
The judgment also records a costs order: the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent £250 under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, payable within 21 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant suffered detriment on the ground that he made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £250
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.