Case 3202158/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D H Salah v Shred-It Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202158/2023
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D H Salah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 8 March 2024 before Employment Judge Jones, with no attendance for the claimant and Mr T Wilkinson, Solicitor, for the respondent, the tribunal considered whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out. By a letter dated 15 December 2023, the claimant had been given the opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on the basis that he had been employed for less than two years and that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make representations or request a hearing, and the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment also records that the discrimination complaint was not struck out. The tribunal stated that it would be listed for hearing once the claimant complied with the attached unless order. The extracted text does not identify any specific protected characteristic, and the judgment did not determine the discrimination complaint on its merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint after the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing in response to the 15 December 2023 letter. The tribunal noted that he had been employed for less than two years and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the discrimination complaint was not struck out and would be listed for hearing once the claimant complied with the attached unless order. No specific protected characteristic is identified in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
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.