Case 2301321/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ahmad Bigverdi v STR 48 Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301321/2022
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ahmad Bigverdi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the respondent's name to STR 48 Limited because that matched the company name on the claimant's payslips and the entity which had responded to the claim, including by providing a payroll extract.
Neither party attended the final hearing. The Tribunal made enquiries and received no information suggesting a good reason for either absence. No adjournment request had been made, there was no apparent reason to justify adjourning, the parties had been notified of the in-person hearing, and no witness evidence had been filed.
Employment Judge B Smith considered dismissal proportionate and justified in the circumstances and dismissed the claims 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claims under rule 47 but does not set out the pleaded claim details; classification follows the listed jurisdiction/category information for the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the claims under rule 47 but does not set out the pleaded claim details; classification follows the listed jurisdiction/category information for the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 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.