Case 3302913/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hussain v Chawerma Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302913/2021
- Decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a one-hour hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal on 9 December 2021 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. Neither party attended by 12pm. The tribunal attempted to contact the claimant by telephone and left two voicemails instructing him to contact the tribunal if he wished the case to proceed. No response was received from either party during the day, and by 2pm there had been no explanation for the non-attendance.
The judge was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been correctly sent to the claimant and that it contained clear instructions. The judge considered whether to proceed in the claimant's absence or to postpone the hearing, but noted that there had been no change of circumstances since the earlier decision on 22 June 2021 that a hearing was required, and that there were insufficient reasons to expect attendance on a later date. The claim was therefore dismissed under Rule 47. No substantive findings were made on the underlying wage deduction or working time issues, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Rule 47
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.