Case 1806669/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ahmad v Ruby Security Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806669/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ahmad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 10 February 2023 the Tribunal wrote to Mr Ahmad at the email address he had provided and told him that the Respondent had not presented a response within the time limit. The Tribunal required him to provide information about the sum owed to him as wages by 24 February 2023. He did not do so.
A reminder letter was sent on 7 March 2023 and he did not respond. By a further letter dated 4 April 2023 the Tribunal warned him that the claim might be struck out because it was not being actively pursued and gave him the opportunity to request a hearing or make written representations. No response was received, and Employment Judge Davies struck out the claim on 25 April 2023 because it appeared not to be actively pursued. The judgment records no substantive determination on the merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a strike-out of the claim and does not separate the outcome by head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a strike-out of the claim and does not separate the outcome by head of claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.