Case 1401450/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Walizada v Mr Panayiotis George Elia of BIG G FOODS LTD. — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401450/2022
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Walizada
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to Mr N Walizada on 26 March 2023 asking whether he still wished to pursue the claim. No response was received. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not complied with the orders dated 25 January 2023 and 16 February 2023, or the reminder sent on 26 March 2023, and that he had not actively pursued the claims.
The judgment says the claimant failed to make written representations, or any sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not happen, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claimant's claims. The hearing listed for 5 May 2023 was vacated. No merits findings or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The extracted judgment text does not itemise the claim head, but the case listing identifies redundancy as one of the claims. The judgment struck out the claimant's claims for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not itemise the claim head, but the case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claims. The judgment struck out the claimant's claims for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
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.