Case 3314094/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hussain v United Parcel Service Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314094/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Hussain presented a claim on 3 August 2021, but the tribunal said the nature of the claim was unclear. The reasons note that it appeared to rely on an ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate issued in 2016, before earlier proceedings between the parties, and that the claimant had intimated discrimination claims without giving the basic details needed to identify them.
On 1 November 2021 Employment Judge Quill ordered the claimant to provide details of the claim. After that order, the claimant sent correspondence to the tribunal, but the judge recorded that none of it answered the questions asked in the order.
On 6 December 2021 Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto issued a strike out warning under which the claimant could make written representations or request a hearing by 3 January 2022. The judge found that the claimant’s later emails of 6 December 2021 did not answer the questions in the 1 November order, did not request a hearing, and did not give reasons why the claim should not be struck out.
The tribunal therefore concluded that more than six months after the claim was submitted, its nature and basis remained unclear, the claimant remained in breach of the tribunal order, and no proper response had been made to the strike out warning. The claim was struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action. It records that the claimant had intimated discrimination claims but did not provide the details ordered by the tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
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.