Case 3304459/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K. Khadam v Superdrug Stores plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304459/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K. Khadam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant did not attend the hearing. It had received no correspondence from the claimant since the ET1, the respondent had received no response to its correspondence, the tribunal had emailed a CVP link the day before the hearing, and the clerk telephoned and left a message on the day of the hearing without receiving a response. The judge waited until 14:15 before starting and had no information explaining the absence.
In light of the lack of communication and the absence of any explanation, the tribunal decided that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claims. The judgment therefore dismissed the claims of indirect race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation, unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had brought another claim in almost identical terms under case number 3304462/2024. It stated that the case management hearing and final hearing dates in that other claim remained listed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Judgment states the claim for indirect race discrimination was dismissed because the claimant did not attend and there had been no communication or explanation for the absence. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Judgment states the claim for harassment related to race was dismissed because the claimant did not attend and there had been no communication or explanation for the absence. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Judgment lists victimisation among the dismissed claims, but does not specify the protected characteristic or protected act in the reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not attend and there had been no communication or explanation for the absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states the unlawful deductions from wages claim was dismissed because the claimant did not attend and there had been no communication or explanation for the absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.