Case 3310351/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Akhter v LRG Employees Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310351/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Akhter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Akhter’s claim against LRG Employees Ltd was heard at Reading on 20 March 2024 before Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst, sitting alone. The tribunal struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. In doing so, it noted that the claimant did not attend the hearing, did not respond to the strike-out warning, and had not complied with tribunal orders. The judge also noted, under Rule 47, that the hearing proceeded in the claimant’s absence after the clerk telephoned him and he confirmed he would not attend.
The respondent’s application for costs succeeded. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent a contribution towards costs of £500 by 17 April 2024. The judgment records no substantive award to the claimant on the pleaded claim(s); the only monetary order was the costs contribution against him.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code; the written judgment refers to the claim generically rather than separating the outcome by cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code; the written judgment refers to the claim generically rather than separating the outcome by cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 37
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.