Case 2203010/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr SM Ali v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203010/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr SM Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing had been listed for 12 and 13 May 2021. The Claimant's representatives applied shortly before the hearing to postpone it, saying they had made plans for the hearing dates, later explaining those plans related to Eid celebrations. The Tribunal refused the application, noting that the hearing dates had been known since March 2021 and that the Respondent's earlier postponement application had not been granted before being withdrawn.
The Claimant and his representative did not attend the hearing. The clerk spoke with the representative and explained that the hearing would proceed in their absence and that judgment might be made against the Claimant, but the representative confirmed they would not attend.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the refusal to attend was unreasonable in the circumstances, while recognising that religious observance would ordinarily be a strong ground for considering a postponement request. The Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claim under Rule 47 because the Claimant and his representative did not attend the hearing. The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claim under Rule 47 because the Claimant and his representative did not attend the hearing. The judgment does not determine the merits of the wages complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.