Case 3312485/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdul Hannan v Bull Doo-Doo AH Limited (company number 08996314) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312485/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdul Hannan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 25 April 2023, Employment Judge Michell sitting alone at Watford recorded that the claimant, Mr Abdul Hannan, was appearing in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Steven Sutcliffe. The judgment was made pursuant to rule 51 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of ordinary unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and pregnancy-related discrimination were each dismissed following their withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment expressly noted that the unfair dismissal claim was the ordinary unfair dismissal claim and did not include the separate automatically unfair dismissal claim pursuant to s104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim upon withdrawal. It expressly states that this did not include the separate automatically unfair dismissal claim under s104C ERA 1996, which is not disposed of in this judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Described in the judgment as pregnancy-related discrimination and dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.