Case 3307360/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Zadi v Atalian Servest Integrated Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307360/2020
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Zadi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 5 April 2022, the Tribunal gave the Claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why his claims should not be struck out. The stated basis was that he had not complied with an order of the Tribunal dated 6 February 2021 and did not appear to be actively pursuing his claims.
The Claimant made no representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out his claims. The hearing listed for 8 to 10 June 2022 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not list the individual claim types, but the case listing identifies breach of contract as one of the claims in this case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the individual claim types, but the case listing identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claims in this case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not list the individual claim types, but the case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claims in this case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not list the individual claim types, but the case listing identifies working time as one of the claims in this case. | Struck out | — | — |
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.