Case 3314966/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Shah v Eros International Limited (in administration) and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314966/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr S Shah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich by CVP on 29 September 2023 before Employment Judge M Warren. The claimant, Mr S Shah, did not attend. The respondents were represented by Mr R Nazarali, solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims, stating that they had no reasonable prospects of success and had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not set out any separate merits findings on the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records a blanket dismissal of the claimant's claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success and had not been actively pursued; no separate merits reasoning is given for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records a blanket dismissal of the claimant's claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success and had not been actively pursued; no separate merits reasoning is given for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a blanket dismissal of the claimant's claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success and had not been actively pursued; no separate merits reasoning is given for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records a blanket dismissal of the claimant's claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success and had not been actively pursued; no separate merits reasoning is given for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- not actively pursued
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.