Case 2411275/2023 · Employment Tribunal
N Shahid v Icare Solutions — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411275/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Shahid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were struck out. The judgment states that, by a letter dated 28 March 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Holmes struck out the claims. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying wage deduction or working time issues.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment is limited to the strike-out decision and the reason given was failure to actively pursue the claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out this claim because it had not been actively pursued. By a letter dated 28 March 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing, but did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal struck out this claim because it had not been actively pursued. By a letter dated 28 March 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing, but did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.