Case 3313283/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hussain v Asda Stores Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3313283/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of age and race discrimination. It recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity, by letter dated 14 August 2019, to make representations or request a hearing on why those complaints should not be struck out.
The reason given was non-compliance with a Tribunal order. The judgment states that the claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The remaining claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, breach of contract and annual leave entitlement were not determined and remained listed for a preliminary hearing on 24 January 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The complaint of age discrimination was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to make written or sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's strike-out warning. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of race discrimination was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to make written or sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's strike-out warning. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.