Case 1600105/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Amos v Aldi Stores Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600105/2022
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Mason Representation
- Venue
- Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Amos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the Claimant's claim pursuant to Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
The Claimant did not attend the hearing on 24 October 2022. The Tribunal proceeded in the Claimant's absence under Rule 47 after efforts were made to contact him, and after taking account of the Notice of Hearing sent on 28 September 2022 and the Tribunal's email to all parties on 17 October 2022 concerning the hearing.
No remedy was awarded and no written reasons were provided in the judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim is struck out under Rule 37. The specific claim types are not set out in the judgment text, but the gov.uk listing categories identify unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim is struck out under Rule 37. The specific discrimination complaint is not described in the judgment text, but the gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim is struck out under Rule 37. The specific wage complaint is not described in the judgment text, but the gov.uk listing category identifies unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.