Case 2216705/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Proud Embankment Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216705/2024
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment dated 10 June 2024. The claimant, Ibrahim Ahmed, had presented his claim form on 15 March 2024. The tribunal recorded that it wrote to the respondent, Proud Embankment Ltd, requiring an ET3 response by 24 May 2024 and then by 6 June 2024, but no ET3 response form was filed by that date.
The tribunal found that the respondent's email of 6 June 2024 did not amount to, or contain, an ET3 response form or an application to extend time. The judgment therefore did not determine the substantive merits of the claim or any monetary remedy. Instead, it directed that the final hearing listed for 18 July 2024 would proceed by CVP before a judge alone, and noted that the respondent would be entitled to notice of the hearing and decisions but could only participate to the extent permitted by the judge unless and until an extension of time and a response form were granted.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No substantive liability or remedy decision is recorded in this Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal dealt only with the respondent's failure to file an ET3 and made case-management directions for the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.