Case 1309074/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Khan v Romax Solutions Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309074/2019
- Decision date
- 17 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 28 August 2020, the tribunal gave Romax Solutions Ltd an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out because it had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 25 February 2020 and because the response had not been actively pursued. On 17 September 2020, Employment Judge Meichen recorded that the respondent had not made sufficient written representations or requested a hearing, and ordered that the response be struck out under rule 37.
The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the claimant's claim and did not make any remedy award. Instead, it converted the hearing listed for 22 and 23 September 2020 into a three-hour in-person hearing on 22 September 2020 to consider the merits of the claim and, if the claimant succeeded, the question of remedy. The claimant was directed to bring two copies of his witness statement, schedule of loss and any relevant documents to that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37 because the respondent had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 25/02/2020 and had not actively pursued the response. The substantive merits of the claim were listed for a later hearing and were not determined in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
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.