Case 1601117/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Arif v New Mirchi Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601117/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Duncan Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Arif
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge G Duncan heard the matter at Cardiff by CVP on 9 December 2021. The judgment states that the claim brought by Mr R Arif against New Mirchi Ltd was struck out pursuant to rule 37(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
No substantive findings on liability are recorded in the extracted judgment text. The decision does not set out the pleaded allegations in detail, explain the basis for strike out, or record any substantive determination on disability discrimination or unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal made no order as to costs. The judgment was sent to the parties on 13 December 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out pursuant to rule 37(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. It does not separately identify the pleaded disability discrimination claim, but the case listing category included disability discrimination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out pursuant to rule 37(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. It does not separately identify the pleaded wages claim, but the case listing category included unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.