Case 3203189/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Laxman Akula v John Lewis plc and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3203189/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Laxman Akula
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 4 March 2025 at East London Hearing Centre, Mr Laxman Akula did not attend and was not represented. The Employment Judge recorded that reasonable enquiries were made to ascertain the reason for his non-attendance, that he did not respond to calls, and that his representative could not be contacted on the day. The tribunal was satisfied under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that it could proceed in the claimant's absence.
On the respondents' application, the tribunal applied Rule 38(1)(e) of the 2024 Rules and struck out and dismissed all claims against all respondents because it considered that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of any of the claims in the case. The judge also recorded that the claimant had had a reasonable opportunity to make representations, in writing and in person, about why the claims should not be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out and dismissed all claims under Rule 38(1)(e); this claim type is taken from the published case listing because the decision does not enumerate the individual claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out and dismissed all claims under Rule 38(1)(e); this claim type is taken from the published case listing because the decision does not enumerate the individual claims. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment struck out and dismissed all claims under Rule 38(1)(e); this claim type is taken from the published case listing because the decision does not enumerate the individual claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out and dismissed all claims under Rule 38(1)(e); this claim type is taken from the published case listing because the decision does not enumerate the individual claims. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out and dismissed all claims under Rule 38(1)(e); this claim type is taken from the published case listing because the decision does not enumerate the individual claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out and dismissed all claims under Rule 38(1)(e); this claim type is taken from the published case listing because the decision does not enumerate the individual claims. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 38(1)(e) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.