Case 2200311/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Iqbal v AKD Facilities Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200311/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Iqbal did not attend the final hearing on 1 March 2023. The Employment Judge was satisfied that he knew about the hearing, referring to correspondence from 23 February 2023 in which he mentioned the 1 March hearing and confirmed that he would attend. The tribunal also recorded that it made two phone calls, left voicemail messages, sent an email with a direct link to join the hearing, and checked the tribunal inbox for any message from him about his non-attendance, but none was received.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had attended two prior case management hearings by CVP, so it was satisfied he knew how to join a remote hearing. After allowing 15 minutes for him to join, and taking into account that it was for the claimant to establish his claim and the overriding objective, the Employment Judge exercised the power under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to dismiss the claim.
The judgment records no findings on the underlying merits of the claim and no monetary award. The only outcome recorded is dismissal for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not determine the substantive merits. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.