Case 1403732/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Mohamed v DPS Global Recruitment Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403732/2021
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr H Mohamed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 25 May 2022, the tribunal gave Mr H Mohamed an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the linked claims under case numbers 1403732/2021 and 1403733/2021 should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that he had not complied with tribunal orders dated 20 April 2022 and 5 May 2022, and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient written representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Gray therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive liability findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment does not identify the substantive claim label; this claim is taken from the linked gov.uk listing. The claim was struck out after the claimant failed to comply with orders dated 20 April 2022 and 5 May 2022 and did not actively pursue it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment does not identify the substantive claim label; this claim is taken from the linked gov.uk listing. The claim was struck out after the claimant failed to comply with orders dated 20 April 2022 and 5 May 2022 and did not actively pursue it. | 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.