Case 3202075/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason Khan v Xtreme Adrenalin Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3202075/2023
- Decision date
- 28 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Jason Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for arrears of pay, holiday pay, notice pay, a redundancy payment, and another claim described as discrimination against a company director. The second respondent resisted the claim and said the Redundancy Payments Service had rejected previous claims because it did not consider the claimant to be an employee of the first respondent.
The final hearing was converted to a hybrid hearing after the second respondent's representative contracted COVID-19. The claimant sought a postponement shortly before the hearing, saying he would be out of the country, but that application was refused and he was told the hearing would proceed and the claim might be dismissed if he did not attend.
The claimant and first respondent did not attend the hearing. After considering the tribunal file, the claimant's non-attendance, the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the need for the claimant to give evidence, and the overriding objective, the Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant pleaded arrears of pay, described in the ET1 as one month's salary. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant pleaded outstanding holiday pay. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant pleaded notice pay. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant pleaded a redundancy payment. The second respondent resisted the claim, stating that the Redundancy Payments Service did not consider the claimant to be an employee of the first respondent. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant ticked another type of claim and described it as "discrimination against a company director". The judgment does not identify a protected characteristic or discrimination cause of action. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.