Case 2406533/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mbarushimana Mr Z Syed Miss S Isanta Crusellas v Safwan Baig Group Limited (in Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406533/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mbarushimana Mr Z Syed Miss S Isanta Crusellas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 February 2020, the Tribunal gave the three claimants an opportunity to explain their non-attendance at the hearing listed for 13 January 2020 and to make representations on why their claims should continue. The letter recorded that the claims might be struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
None of the three claimants made any written representations or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. On that basis, Employment Judge Leach Date struck out the claims in case numbers 2406533/2019, 2406559/2019 and 2406548/2019 because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment was sent to the parties on 25 February 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Case No. 2406533/2019; the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimants did not attend the 13 January 2020 hearing and made no representations following the Tribunal's letter of 11 February 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Case No. 2406559/2019; the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimants did not attend the 13 January 2020 hearing and made no representations following the Tribunal's letter of 11 February 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Case No. 2406548/2019; the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimants did not attend the 13 January 2020 hearing and made no representations following the Tribunal's letter of 11 February 2020. | 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.