Case 2412119/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Mahmood v SBS Insurance Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412119/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Mahmood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 21 October 2024, the Tribunal gave Miss M Mahmood an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, before deciding whether to strike out the claim. The reasons identified were that the preliminary hearing listed for 5 July 2024 had been postponed at the claimant's request subject to her sending medical evidence of ill-health, but she had not replied to the Tribunal's letter of 3 July 2024 by the deadline of 31 July 2024, or at all, and had provided no evidence supporting the postponement request.
The Tribunal also stated that it appeared the claimant was conducting the proceedings unreasonably and that the claim was not being actively pursued. The claimant failed to make written representations, or any sufficient representations, in response to the strike-out warning, and did not request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out, and the hearing listed for 5 July 2024 was not to take place. The judgment records no merits determination and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action. It records only that the claim was struck out after a warning letter, following the claimant's failure to reply to the Tribunal's 3 July 2024 letter within the deadline, failure to provide medical evidence for the postponement request, and failure to 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.