Case 2500452/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Bouheniche v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs Heard in person at Newcastle — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500452/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mr D Cattell, Ms S Don
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Bouheniche
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place in Newcastle on 22 May 2023 before Employment Judge Aspden, sitting with Mr D Cattell and Ms S Don. The respondent was represented by Mr J McHugh, Counsel. The claimant did not attend and was not represented.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because he failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. The decision therefore disposed of the breach of contract, race discrimination, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time claims without a substantive merits determination.
The record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.