Case 2300962/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sadiq v Magnet Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300962/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sadiq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 January 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Heath Date struck out the claim under rule 37. The judgment records that the hearing listed for 23 to 25 September 2024 would not take place.
The extracted judgment does not set out any merits findings on the pleaded claim(s) and does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment text does not break the strike out down by individual pleaded heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment text does not break the strike out down by individual pleaded heads of claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment text does not break the strike out down by individual pleaded heads of claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.