Case 6008678/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Kamran Hussain v McDonald’s Restaurants Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6008678/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch KC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kamran Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningKamran Hussain presented his ET1 on 15 August 2024. He ticked unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and other types of claims, which he described as fraud and health and safety, but paragraph 8.2 of the form gave no supporting facts and instead cited sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and some tribunal rules. The respondent told the tribunal there was no record of the claimant ever having been employed by it, which the judge said was unsurprising given the ET1's same-day start and end date of 8 August 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to attend or be represented; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The ET1 ticked whistleblowing and cited sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but no supporting facts were pleaded; dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The ET1 also ticked 'other types of claims' described as fraud and health and safety, but the claim form gave no supporting facts; dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective
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.