Case 1311381/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jawad Mohammed Second claimant: Mr Abdul Latif Third claimant: Mr Arfan Ali v West Midlands Accessories Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311381/2020
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jawad Mohammed Second claimant: Mr Abdul Latif Third claimant: Mr Arfan Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed at Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 2 July 2021 before Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone. No claimant attended. The tribunal delayed the start until 10.40am to allow time for attendance and to make enquiries, but a call to the claimants' contact number was unanswered and the message left did not prompt a reply.
The respondent said it had had no contact from the claimants and no correspondence from them in relation to preparation of the hearing bundle. Mindful of rule 47, the tribunal considered whether to dismiss the claims, proceed in the claimants' absence, or adjourn the hearing.
The tribunal concluded that the claimants had acted unreasonably in failing to attend. Applying the overriding objective, and in order to deal with the matter proportionately while avoiding delay and saving expense, the tribunal dismissed the claims on their non-attendance. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | First claimant's claim was dismissed on non-attendance. The judgment does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Second claimant's claim was dismissed on non-attendance. The judgment does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Third claimant's claim was dismissed on non-attendance. The judgment does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- 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.