Case 3302095/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hussain (Solicitor, assisting as a family friend Pro bono) For the v Mr H Asif, Guardian Support — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302095/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hussain (Solicitor, assisting as a family friend Pro bono) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only matter determined in this judgment was the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response for non-compliance with the June 2023 Case Management Order. The tribunal found that the respondent had not complied with that order, but also noted that the respondent had applied in July 2023 to amend the timetable for disclosure, bundle preparation and witness statements, well before the final hearing listed for May 2024.
Employment Judge G D Davison held that there had been little disruption, unfairness or prejudice. The claimant had continued to comply with the order and had served a witness statement, but the tribunal found that this did not give the respondent an unfair advantage and that a fair hearing was still possible. The tribunal also found that striking out would not be a proportionate response, and that any further non-compliance could be addressed at the further preliminary hearing listed for 10 January 2024. The application to strike out the response was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application to strike out the respondent's response for non-compliance with the June 2023 Case Management Order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulation 37(1)(c)
- Regulation 37(1)(e)
- overriding objective
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.