Case 2304975/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Khalid Mahmood v NSL Ltd (named by the respondent) Marston Holdings Ltd (named by the claimant) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304975/2022
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Khalid Mahmood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 18 August 2024, and renewed the application on 24 February 2025, for the respondent's response to be struck out because of persistent non-compliance with case management orders. The judgment records failures to comply with orders for disclosure and file preparation, despite ample opportunity to do so. The respondent did not reply to either application, although copies had been served.
The tribunal said it was gravely concerned by the non-compliance, particularly because the hearing was due to start on 18 March 2025. It found that if disclosure and file preparation had not been completed, contingent steps such as the service of witness statements were also likely not to have been done, amounting to a comprehensive failure to engage properly with the tribunal process. The tribunal concluded that a fair trial could not take place as listed and that striking out the response was both just and in accordance with the Overriding Objective.
The response was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. As a result, Rule 22 operated and the respondent was deemed liable for Mr Mahmood's claims. The hearing listed for 18-21 March 2025 was revised so that it would proceed on 18-19 March 2025 only, with 20-21 March vacated, before an Employment Judge sitting alone and on remedy only. The claimant was directed to provide a detailed schedule of loss within 7 days of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | No merits determination was made in this judgment; the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), and liability followed under Rule 22. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | No merits determination was made in this judgment; the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), and liability followed under Rule 22. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | No merits determination was made in this judgment; the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), and liability followed under Rule 22. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No merits determination was made in this judgment; the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), and liability followed under Rule 22. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | No merits determination was made in this judgment; the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), and liability followed under Rule 22. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 22
- Overriding Objective
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.