Case 3313448/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Aditya Agrawal v London North West University Hospital Healthcare NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313448/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Aditya Agrawal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application for relief from sanction and held that he was debarred from relying on his witness statement. The judgment records that the claimant had not exchanged his witness statement by the required deadline and had still not provided a schedule of loss for the unauthorised deduction of wages and annual leave claims.
The tribunal found that the failures were serious, that responsibility for them lay with the claimant, and that no good reason had been given for not serving the witness statement after 16 January 2025. It found that the late service caused unfairness and prejudice to the respondent because the respondent had been unable to prepare or take instructions, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
The tribunal considered lesser alternatives, including proceeding without the claimant's evidence, postponement, and costs, but concluded that no lesser remedy was appropriate or proportionate. The claimant's claim was therefore struck out for non-compliance with an order of the tribunal under Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The whole claim was struck out for non-compliance with a tribunal order after relief from sanction was refused; the unfair dismissal claim was not determined on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to an unauthorised deduction of wages claim and notes that no schedule of loss had been provided; the claim was struck out with the rest of the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to annual leave claims but does not give a separate merits determination or remedy; the claim was struck out with the rest of the case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 30 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective
- Denton test
- Bharaj v Santander UK Plc and others [2023] EAT 152
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
- Baber v Royal Bank of Scotland UK EAT 0301/15/JOJ & UK EAT 0302/15/JOJ
- Rule 38(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.