Case 3201420/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Rahman v OJA Global Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201420/2023
- Decision date
- 21 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a full merits hearing on 4 December 2023. The claimant and respondent did not attend. The tribunal noted that the respondent had not presented a response, but the claimant also failed to comply with case management orders and did not provide the requested schedule of loss, witness statement(s), or documents.
Before deciding to dismiss under Rule 47, the tribunal considered the reason for the claimant's absence and made practicable enquiries, including a telephone call and an email asking him to attend or respond by 12:15pm. No explanation or response was received. The tribunal also noted that the claim form did not state the claimant's remuneration or the amount of compensation sought.
On the evidence available, the tribunal found there was no proof that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant as alleged. It concluded that the claimant had not proved his claims, that they were not well founded, and dismissed all claims, which were identified as claims for unauthorised deductions of wages for 9 days' work and 13 days' holiday.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions relating to 9 days' work; dismissed after the claimant did not attend and gave no evidence of non-payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unauthorised deductions relating to 13 days' holiday; dismissed after the claimant did not attend and gave no evidence of entitlement or non-payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.