Case 3311041/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A el hassai v Craftovator — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311041/2023
- Decision date
- 17 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A el hassai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 10 July 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr A el hassai an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, explaining why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Anstis struck out the claim on 17 December 2024. The judgment records no findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded complaints and makes no award of compensation or other remedy.
The tribunal therefore disposed of the proceedings by strike out only, without deciding the substantive breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages issues said to be within the case listing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. It does not identify a separate outcome for this specific claim type, but the case listing indicates breach of contract was one of the pleaded categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. It does not identify a separate outcome for this specific claim type, but the case listing indicates unlawful deduction from wages was one of the pleaded categories. | 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.