Case 1804039/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammad Haashim Ali v Ilke Homes Limited (in administration) Heard by CVP (remote video link) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804039/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammad Haashim Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Mohammad Haashim Ali, brought a complaint that Ilke Homes Limited (in administration) did not permit him to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing, contrary to section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The respondent's administrators consented to the case proceeding and stated that they did not contest the claim. The claimant clarified the scope of the claim at a preliminary hearing on 24 January 2024.
Employment Judge D N Jones entered judgment under rule 21 without the need for a final hearing. The tribunal found the complaint well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £504.80 in compensation, described as one week's pay for the infringement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint that the respondent did not permit the claimant to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing, contrary to section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. Judgment was entered under rule 21 without a final hearing after the administrators consented to the case proceeding and did not contest the claim. | Upheld | — | £505 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £505
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £505
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999
- rule 21
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.