Case 1602423/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Syed Gillani (and others) v Veezu Limited (and others) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602423/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Syed Gillani (and others)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondents applied under Rule 38 to strike out the claims of identified Claimants on the basis of alleged non-compliance with orders and/or failure to actively pursue the claims. The application concerned Claimants who had not completed questionnaires about their driving activities, and Mr Amjid Dad, who had withdrawn as a potential Lead Claimant for personal reasons.
The Tribunal considered that information had been provided from a sufficient proportion of the Claimant body to allow the Respondents to undertake the broad assessment contemplated by the EAT's orders. It found that, even if there had been possible elements of default by particular Claimants, the circumstances did not make a fair trial impossible or cause serious prejudice to the Respondents.
The Tribunal therefore concluded that strike out would not be appropriate and refused the Respondents' application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary judgment on the Respondents' Rule 38 application to strike out claims for alleged non-compliance with orders and/or failure to actively pursue. The strike-out application was refused; the underlying Contract of Employment, Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations claims were not adjudicated on their merits in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 684
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.