Case 1305944/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Z Zahid v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305944/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Z Zahid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the remote hearing on 24 October 2024. The Tribunal made enquiries to determine whether the claimant planned to attend, but received no response to a telephone call or email, and decided to proceed in the claimant's absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(a). It found that the claim appeared to raise the same claims as those advanced in case number 1305140/2024 and was therefore an abuse of the Tribunal's process. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested within the stated period.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The listing categories identify unfair dismissal, but the judgment itself refers generally to the Claimant's claim and does not set out the pleaded causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The listing categories identify breach of contract, but the judgment itself refers generally to the Claimant's claim and does not set out the pleaded causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- abuse of the Tribunal's process
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.