Case 3300467/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Haddad v UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300467/2023
- Decision date
- 15 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Haddad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of religion or belief discrimination and notice pay. Case management orders had been made for the preparation of a final hearing, including disclosure, a hearing bundle and exchange of witness statements.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not engaged with the respondent in preparing the case, had not cooperated with disclosure, bundle preparation or witness statement exchange, and did not attend the strike-out hearing despite being aware of it. The Tribunal was satisfied there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay, that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was unreasonable, and that it was not possible to have a fair hearing.
The respondent's application was granted and the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claim form included complaints of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The judgment struck out the claim procedurally and did not adjudicate the merits. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim form included a complaint for notice pay. The judgment struck out the claim procedurally and did not adjudicate the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Evans v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1993] ICR 151
- Birkett v James [1978] AC 297
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.