Case 3202082/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Haque v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202082/2018
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr P Quinn, Mrs A Berry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Haque
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a full hearing on 15 October 2019, but the Claimant did not attend. He had previously been granted a postponement of an August 2019 hearing on condition that he provide a death certificate by 14 August 2019, but the Tribunal recorded that he did not comply with that order. The hearing was later relisted for 15 and 16 October 2019, and the Tribunal found that the Claimant was aware of those dates.
The Claimant applied by email on 13 October 2019 for a postponement, which was refused on 14 October 2019. The Respondent applied to strike out the claim, relying on non-compliance with Tribunal orders, lack of active pursuit, non-attendance, and the absence of a relevant ACAS early conciliation certificate. The Tribunal had regard to rules 37 and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and stated that it also seemed likely that the claim should not have been accepted under rule 12 because there was no relevant ACAS EC certificate.
Having considered the Respondent's submissions and what it described as a catalogue of default by the Claimant, the Tribunal struck out the Claimant's Employment Tribunal claims on the basis of non-compliance with Tribunal orders, failure actively to pursue the claim, and non-attendance. The Respondent made a costs application for £10,948.40, but the Tribunal did not determine it in this judgment and instead gave directions for the Claimant's response and listed the costs application for a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal rules
- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules
- rule 12 of the Employment Tribunal rules
- rule 76 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.