Case 1307927/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U Hussain v Almagir — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307927/2023
- Decision date
- 8 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr U Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. The claim was presented without an ACAS EC number. By a letter dated 21 November 2023, the Claimant was asked to provide proof that his employer had been in touch with ACAS, preferably a copy of the certificate. He replied by email saying his employer had been in touch with ACAS, but he did not provide anything to substantiate that position.
The tribunal sent a further email on 22 November 2023 reiterating that proof was required. A letter dated 30 November 2023 again required a copy of the ACAS certificate by 7 December 2023. The Claimant did not reply. A further letter dated 20 December 2023 said strike-out would be considered because he had not responded to the 22 and 30 November correspondence and because he was not actively pursuing the claim, and gave him until 27 December 2023 to object. He did not respond, and EJ Maxwell Date struck out the claims in the judgment dated 8 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment refers to the Claimant's claims being struck out and does not distinguish individual causes of action; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment refers to the Claimant's claims being struck out and does not distinguish individual causes of action; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d)
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.