Case 2411145/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M N Shahzad v Kingdom Services Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411145/2021
- Decision date
- 19 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M N Shahzad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claims. It had written to the claimant on 25 August 2022 giving him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claims should not be struck out.
The reasons given for possible strike out were that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 10 March 2022 and sent to the parties on 19 March 2022, and the claims had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The hearing listed for 17-19 April 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out particulars of the claim; it records that the claims were struck out together. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not set out particulars of the discrimination claim; the race classification is taken from the case listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not set out particulars of the claim; it records that the claims were struck out together. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out particulars of the claim; it records that the claims were struck out together. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out particulars of the claim; it records that the claims were struck out together. | 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.