Case 3310188/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms z ali v ISS UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310188/2022
- Decision date
- 14 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms z ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded that the claimant had failed to provide a proper explanation and medical evidence concerning the failure to supply a telephone number for the telephone case management hearing, and had not provided an explanation for not ensuring availability for that hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims on the basis that they were no longer actively pursued. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The GOV.UK listing identifies disability discrimination, but the judgment text itself does not set out the individual causes of action; it states generally that the claim is struck out and the claimant's claims are dismissed as no longer actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The GOV.UK listing identifies unfair dismissal, but the judgment text itself does not set out the individual causes of action; it states generally that the claim is struck out and the claimant's claims are dismissed as no longer actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The GOV.UK listing identifies Working Time Regulations, but the judgment text itself does not set out the individual causes of action; it states generally that the claim is struck out and the claimant's claims are dismissed as no longer actively pursued. | 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.