Case 3323011/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A El-Helafi v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited Heard: Norwich — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323011/2021
- Decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A El-Helafi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis case was dealt with at a closed preliminary hearing before Employment Judge M Warren on 15 June 2022. The claimant agreed that the correct name of the respondent was Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited.
The tribunal recorded that, if the claimant withdrew his claims, the respondent would not apply for costs. The claimant's claims of sex discrimination, unpaid wages and holiday pay were then dismissed upon having been withdrawn.
No substantive findings on liability, remedy, or compensation were recorded in the extracted judgment. The decision is limited to disposal of the claims after withdrawal and the naming of the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | At a closed preliminary hearing, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's sex discrimination claim was dismissed upon having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At a closed preliminary hearing, the tribunal recorded that the unpaid wages claim was dismissed upon having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | At a closed preliminary hearing, the tribunal recorded that the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.