Case 3202421/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rahmat Ali v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202421/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rahmat Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim described in the ET1 as breach of contract - withdrawal of a successful promotion, and the respondent filed a response resisting the claim. The final hearing was listed by Cloud Video Platform on 15 April 2024, but neither party attended or was represented.
The Tribunal recorded that notice of the hearing had been sent to both parties, that no return of the notice had been received, and that the clerk attempted to contact both parties by telephone and email on the day of the hearing. After considering the Tribunal file, the available information, Rule 47 and the overriding objective, the Tribunal decided it was not appropriate to hear the claim in the claimant's absence and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was described as breach of contract - withdrawal of a successful promotion. It was dismissed under Rule 47 due to non-attendance, without adjudication of the substantive merits. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.