Case 2300829/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Nishat Kamal Kaniz v Navaratna South Indian Restaurant Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300829/2022
- Decision date
- 27 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Tribunal
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- J Clewlow, E Wiles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Nishat Kamal Kaniz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at London South on 27 November 2023 before Employment Judge D Wright, with tribunal members J Clewlow and E Wiles. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr Thambi, a lay representative.
The tribunal ordered that the claimant's claim be struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order, and under Rule 37(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The record does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims.
The tribunal also recorded that no application to strike out had been made by the respondent since the claimant had told the respondent that they were no longer pursuing the claim. It further noted that the respondent's solicitor's costs application could not be dealt with at the hearing because the lay representative was not in a position to deal with it, and that any such application would need to be made in the usual manner if pursued.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The extracted judgment states only that the claimant's claim was struck out in full under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). The pleaded claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The extracted judgment states only that the claimant's claim was struck out in full under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). The pleaded claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment states only that the claimant's claim was struck out in full under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). The pleaded claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment states only that the claimant's claim was struck out in full under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). The pleaded claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment states only that the claimant's claim was struck out in full under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). The pleaded claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
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.