Case 3302338/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Haroon Ayub v Ministry of Defence — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302338/2021
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Non
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr P Maclean, Ms A Telfer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Haroon Ayub
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 28 June 2024 or 1 July 2024. The Tribunal considered written representations from the claimant and submissions from the respondent after warning that it would consider strike out, dismissal for non-attendance, and costs issues.
The Tribunal found that the threshold for strike out under rules 37(1)(b) and 37(1)(c) ETR had been reached, but decided that strike out was not in the interests of justice. It nevertheless found the claimant's reasons for non-attendance inadequate, noted that no medical grounds or evidence had been put forward, and dismissed the proceedings under rule 47 ETR for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismisses the proceedings under rule 47 ETR for non-attendance. The supplied text is truncated and does not set out detailed findings on the pleaded race discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment dismisses the proceedings under rule 47 ETR for non-attendance. The supplied text is truncated and does not set out detailed findings on the pleaded religion or belief discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 ETR
- rule 37(1)(b) ETR
- rule 37(1)(c) ETR
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.