Case 1305823/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Adnan Khalid v Blue Mountain Water Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305823/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Adnan Khalid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment under rule 37. The Tribunal recorded that the final hearing was listed for 11 September 2024, that the claimant had been told on 10 September 2024 that the hearing would start at 10.30 a.m., and that he did not attend. The Tribunal clerk tried to contact him twice by telephone and the calls went to voicemail, and the Tribunal also emailed him to attend but he did not respond.
The Tribunal also noted that, under a case management order dated 15 April 2024, the claimant was required to provide a schedule of loss to the respondent by 13 May 2024 and did not do so. The respondent had served a bundle and witness statements on 5 September 2024, including service by registered post that was signed for on 7 September 2024.
On the respondent’s application, the Tribunal determined that the claim should be dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and had not complied with the case management order or made representations asking why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment records a dismissal only and does not contain any substantive findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a rule 37 strike-out dismissal of the claim as a whole. It does not separately identify a disposal for this head of claim, but the gov.uk listing categories indicate unlawful deduction from wages was part of the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a rule 37 strike-out dismissal of the claim as a whole. It does not separately identify a disposal for this head of claim, but the gov.uk listing categories indicate a working time claim was part of the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.