Case 4102607/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Abdelhameed Elatabani v [via Interpreter: Mr Nasr] Adecco UK Limited — 2023

Case reference: 4102607/2022
Decision date: 9 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Venue: Glasgow

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Abdelhameed Elatabani

Respondent

[via Interpreter: Mr Nasr] Adecco UK Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 28 April 2023, the claimant asked for a postponement because of concern about the armed conflict in Sudan and because he was unrepresented. The tribunal gave him 90 minutes to review the bundle and written material, after which he confirmed that he was ready to proceed.

On Amazon UK Services Ltd's application under Rule 37 and Rule 39, the tribunal refused both strike-out and a deposit order on the age discrimination allegation. It held that the pleaded case, taken at its highest, was not limited to a bare difference in treatment and age; it raised issues about the reasons given for ending the assignment and an alleged opportunity for permanent employment that was not realised. The tribunal therefore could not say that the allegation had no, or little, reasonable prospect of success.

On Adecco UK Limited's applications, the tribunal made separate deposit orders of £100 each for four allegations: age discrimination, alleged non-payment of £240 sick pay, underpaid holiday pay, and breach of contract in relation to notice. It found that the named comparators on the age claim had moved to direct employment with Amazon and were not in the same circumstances; that the £240 sick pay had in substance been paid in July 2022; that the holiday pay allegation was not set out as a statable case and the tribunal referred to payments totalling £305.86; and that clause 14 of the contract meant the claimant was not entitled to notice pay when not working on assignment.

In setting the deposits, the tribunal took account of the claimant's means, including that he had no savings, earned about £300-£400 a week, and had monthly outgoings including rent, council tax arrears, and utilities. It considered £100 per allegation proportionate. The tribunal then maintained the list of issues and listed a final hearing for 10 to 12 October 2023.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Against Amazon UK Services Ltd; Rule 37 strike-out and Rule 39 deposit order refused. The tribunal held that, taken at its highest, the pleaded case went beyond a bare difference-in-age assertion because it raised issues about the reasons given for ending the assignment and an unfulfilled opportunity for permanent employment.	Other	Age	—
Age discrimination	Against Adecco UK Limited; Rule 39 deposit order of £100 made in respect of the allegation that the Claimant was not retained at the end of his assignment where a younger worker was or would have been retained.	Other	Age	—
Breach of contract	Against Adecco UK Limited; Rule 39 deposit order of £100 made in respect of alleged unpaid sick pay of £240 after Covid/self-isolation absence. The tribunal accepted there had been a payment of £240 in July 2022.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Against Adecco UK Limited; Rule 39 deposit order of £100 made in respect of underpaid holiday pay. The tribunal said the claimant did not set out a statable case and referred to holiday-pay payments totalling £305.86.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	Against Adecco UK Limited; Rule 39 deposit order of £100 made in respect of notice pay. The tribunal held that clause 14 of the contract excluded payment for notice when the claimant was not working on assignment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

12 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.