Case 3200771/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Hussain v Umit Gorgulu and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200771/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A Hussain
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 March 2021 before Employment Judge Jones, the tribunal considered two claim forms and two ACAS Conciliation Certificates. It found that the first claim issued on 18 March 2020 did not contain the correct name of the respondent, and the ACAS Conciliation Certificate dated 18 March 2020 also did not contain the correct respondent name. The second claim issued on 22 February 2021 likewise did not contain the correct name of the respondent.
The tribunal further found that the name of the respondent on both claims and the name on the second ACAS Conciliation Certificate dated 4 February 2021 were not the same. On that basis, the claimant's claims were rejected because of substantial defects under Rules 10 and 12(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Rules 2013, and the tribunal recorded that the claims could not proceed. The respondent did not have to provide a response to the second claim, and all hearing dates were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal rejected the claimant's claims on procedural grounds under Rules 10 and 12(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Rules 2013 because the respondent names on the claim forms and ACAS certificates did not match. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 10 and 12(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Rules 2013
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.