Case 2305274/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rahman v JD Sports Fashion plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305274/2019
- Decision date
- 6 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim on the grounds that the Claimant had failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal had written to the Claimant on 23 June 2020 warning that strike out was being considered because of non-compliance with case management orders dated 11 February 2020 and lack of active pursuit. The Claimant was asked to comment by 30 June 2020, but the Tribunal received no response.
In the absence of representations, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant had failed to comply with the relevant orders and was no longer actively pursuing the claim, including by failing to engage with the Respondent and the Tribunal. It considered it appropriate to strike out all claims, which were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all claims were struck out and dismissed, but does not separately enumerate this claim; classification follows the supplied listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were struck out and dismissed, but does not separately enumerate this claim; classification follows the supplied listing category. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all claims were struck out and dismissed, but does not separately enumerate this claim; classification follows the supplied listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that all claims were struck out and dismissed, but does not separately enumerate this claim; classification follows the supplied listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
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.